Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/358

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic India PVt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Verma Adv.

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 358 dated 16.12.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 02.01.2023.

 

Mandeep Singh son of Sh. Jarnail Singh, R/o. Village Pohir, Sub-Tehsil Dehlon, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 12^th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India through its CEO/MD/Manager/authorized signatory.       
2. DEE Kay Electronics, 2960, Guru Nanak Colony, Opp. G.N.E. College, Gill Road, Ludhiana, through its Prop/partner/authorized signatory.         

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Karan Verma, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Panasonic LED model No.TH43GX655DX bearing IMEI No.19APSTCCSK02807 amounting to Rs.41,000/- including GST vide invoice No.DKNG-1363 dated 27.10.2019 from opposite party No.2 (an authorized seller of opposite party No.1) along with one Panasonic Speaker along with one USB charger make Sony which was complementary on the purchase of the LED. At the time of purchase of the LED, opposite party No.2 and the representative of opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the said product is of good quality. Apart from that the opposite parties gave one year guarantee with regard to the purchased product. After one month of the purchase of LED, the same started showing some connectivity problem and sometimes it used to make absurd noises. The picture quality continued to be deteriorated day by day due to some technical issue. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 at least 50-60 times but not even once a satisfactory reply was given by the executive of opposite party No.1. The complainant approached the Manager at Ludhiana office of opposite party No.1 who introduced himself to be Sukhraj. He was apprised of the problem faced by the complainant but he did not care to resolve the issue. Later on, one executive namely Sunil claimed himself to be an engineer of opposite party No.1 figured out that there is a motherboard issue in the LED but he did not issue any job sheet. He changed the mother board of LED without issuing receipt or job sheet. Even after changing of mother board, the LED was continued giving problem with regard to connectivity, projection of screen and speaker issues. The complainant again approached the opposite parties with a request to change the LED as per assurance and guarantee given by them at the time of sale but nothing was done on their part. Even after the lockdown, the complainant again approached the opposite parties for changing of LED as he continued to experience same problem even after update of software and mother board but the opposite parties refused to entertain the justified claim of the complainant with regard to a new LED. The complainant has suffered harassment, pain and agony and the LED is lying dysfunctional because of non-resolving of the problems so he is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and he is further entitled for a refund of amount of Rs. 41,000/- spent on the LED.

2.                 Notice was sent to opposite party No.1 and 2 through registered post on 22.04.2021 but the same was not received back either served or unserved even after elapse of period of 30 days. As such, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.07.2021.          

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. C1/A in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is a copy of bill dated 27.10.2019, Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 are the call details, Ex. C4 to Ex. C19 are the photographs and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant. 

5.                From the close scrutiny of the complaint, affidavit and documents, it is apparent that the LED was purchased on 27.10.2019 and within one month of its purchase, it started giving trouble with regard to its connectivity, picture quality and speakers. The complainant had approached opposite party No.1 on its toll free number at least for 50-60 times but no satisfactory reply was given by opposite party No.1. Even thereafter, the complainant had been approaching manager at Ludhiana office of the opposite parties and requesting them to make the product defect free. Although after long persuasions, mother board of the LED was changed but did not remove the defect in the LED. As advised by the officials of opposite party No.1, the software was updated but the complainant continued to suffer with the same problems. The complainant also approached the opposite parties after when the COVID was over but the opposite parties continued to maintain the same attitude towards the complaint of the complainant.

6.                Opposite party No.1 is a product manufacturer while opposite party No.2 is a product seller. Section 84 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for the liability of the product manufacturer and Section 86 of the Act provides for the liability of the product seller which is reproduced hereunder:-

“84. Liability of product manufacturer: (1) A product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action, if

1. the product contains a manufacturing defect; or
2. the product is defective in design; or
3. there is a deviation from manufacturing specifications; or
4. the product fails to contain adequate instructions of correct usage to prevent any harm or any warning regarding improper or incorrect usage.

(2) A product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action even if he proves that he was not negligent or fraudulent in making the express warranty of a product.

86. Liability of product sellers.- A product seller who is not a product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action, if

(a) he has exercised substantial control over the designing, testing, manufacturing, packaging or labeling of a product that caused harm; or

(b) he has altered or modified the product and such alteration or modification was the substantial factor in causing the harm; or

(c) he has made an express warranty of a product independent or any express warranty made by a manufacturer and such product failed to conform to the express warranty made by the product seller which caused the harm; or

(d) the product has been sold by him and the identity of product manufacturer of such product is not known, or if known, the service of notice or process or warrant cannot be effected on him or he is not subject to the law which is in force in India or the order, if any, passed or to be passed cannot been forced against him; or

(e)      he failed to exercise reasonable care in assembling, inspecting or maintaining such product or he did not pass on the warnings or instructions of the product manufacturer regarding the dangers involved or proper usage of the product while selling such product and such failure was the proximate cause of the harm.

7.                In the given set of circumstances, the case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 84 and 86 of the Act and the product liability action initiated by him against the opposite parties on account of sale of defective product i.e. LED is sustainable. The product is lying dysfunction for the last few months and the complainant has not been able to use it. It is just possible that by now the product must have become outdated. Even the exparte evidence led by the complainant has gone un- rebutted. So considering all these aspect, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to replace the LED having equivalent configuration of the product sold to the complainant within 30 days and also to pay a composite cost of Rs.7000/- to the complainant.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite parties are directed to replace the LED having equivalent configuration of the product in question subject to handing over the dysfunctional LED to the opposite parties in its existing condition within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Mandeep Singh Vs Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.                  CC/20/358

Present:       Sh. Karan Verma, Advocate for complainant.

                   OPs exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite parties are directed to replace the LED having equivalent configuration of the product in question subject to handing over the dysfunctional LED to the opposite parties in its existing condition within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.