::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
AT BIDAR::
C.C.No. 58/2014
Date of filing : 16/07/2014
Date of disposal : 27/10/2016
P R E S E N T:- (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,
B.A., LL.B.,
President.
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: Raghavendra Kulkarni, s/o Murlidhar rao Kulkarni,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Self employed,
R/o Shiva nagar, Bidar.
(By Shri. Deshpande P.M., Advocate )
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S :- 1. Panasonic, India Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office, Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd.,
6th Floor, Spic Building, Annexe no.88,
Mount road, Guindy, Chennai-600032.
2. Metro Cash and Carry India Pvt. Ltd.,
Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore.
(O.P.No.1By Shri.S.M. Shetkar, Advocate)
( O.P.No.2-Ex-parte )
:: J UD G M E N T : :
By Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi), Member.
The complainant has filed this case U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986 against the Opponents which reads as hereunder.
2. That the complainant intending to purchase a 50 inches (Plazma) T.V. negotiated with the Opponents and defrayed the price of T.V. Rs. 49,999/- on 07-11-2012 vide invoice no. 09001022454 dt. 07-11-2012 vide Ex.P.1 (copy) and Ex.P.12 (original). The product was warranted for a period of one year as would be evident from Ex.P.11. The captioned T.V. was delivered to him, but just after eight month serious flaws were noted in the function ofthe T.V., so much so that, once it was switched off, was not reverting to functionality. The complainant lodging a complaint with the customer care of O.P.no.1, the Opponent no.3 ( deleted on 30-05-2015) was deputed and received the defective T.V. on 27-07-2013, from the premises of the complainant at Bidar promising to rectify the defects. After waiting for a period of two months, when the complainant enquired, he was advised that, the T.V. set has been sent to Hubli/ Hyderabad for repair, which could not materialise and the complainant was assured a new set in lieu of the earlier defective one. Even at one point of time, the complainant was agreeable to receive a L.E.D. T.V. in the place of his original one but, was advised that, his choice would be conveyed to the company and needful would be done.
3. Against the non response of the Opponents, after fifteen days, the complainant made further enquiry and it was revealed that, then the same model T.V. was not available in the stock and was conveyed to accept a LTH TT 5060D model of 50” against an extra payment of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant was agreeable to pay an extra amount of Rs. 15,000/-, which offer was not accepted by the O.P. company. In turn, the complainant was advised to wait for availability of the same model T.V. i.e. 50 ET 60 D for which he waited for eight months, after which it was conveyed to him that, for the same model he was supposed to pay additional sum of Rs. 25,000/ or otherwise, the price of the T.V. should be refunded back to him No refund has been made to the complainant as yet.
4. The complainant avers further that, he and his wife are employed, habitually used to see the broadcasts while taking food with children and sans the T.V. his children are not eating their foods, causing health problem of the children, entailing hospitalisation, wherefore, the complainant computes his damages at Rs. 1,50,000/- and claims the same. ( sic-The averments are ludicrous per-se). He also seeks a direction to the O.Ps to deliver a new T.V. of DT 50 60 D in lieu of the damaged set.
5. In the instant case, the O.P.no.3 has been deleted at the behest of the complainant and O.P.no.2 due to non participation has been placed ex parte. The O.P.no.1, appearing self up to 19-02-2016, engaged a counsel on 01-03-2016, who represented to negotiate an amicable settlement. In consonance with the A.D.R.M. procedures, this Court has been liberally granting time up to 20-10-2016 and since no settlement was reported, posted the case for judgment.
6. In the meanwhile, versions was filed by O.P.no.1 on 20-09-2014, in which, the Opponent has admitted the fact of receipt of the price of the T.V., it’s delivery, guarantee, replacement of the defective set or return of the price paid and the readiness of the O.P.no.1 to refund the amount. A blame has been clamped against the complainant that, he refused to receive the refund. It has been further disputed that, the complainant deserves damages to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and also that, due to adamant attitude of the complainant, the amount could not be refunded to him.
7. The complainant’s side has filed documents listed at the end of this order, together with evidene affidavit. Per contra, the O.P’s side had filed only one document Ex.R.1 and nothing else.
8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-
- Does the complainant prove that, there has been deficiency of service in the part of the Opponents?
- Does the complainant further prove that, his computation of damages is in order?
- Does the Opponent no.1 prove that, it’s actions are in order and as per proper acumen?
- What order ?
9. Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-
1. In the affirmative
2. Partially affirmative
3. In the negative.
4. As per the final order, for the following:
:: REASONS ::
10. Both the parties are in agreement about the sale, defects and receipt of the defective merchandise by the Opponents, so we refrain to further delve into the matter. It is on record that, the sold product was defective and the opponent have received the same for rectification but in vain. Albeit, there has been an offer of alternative set with better features, with extra payments, the customer cannot be bound to accept such an extraneous offer. It was incumbent upon the Opponents to replace a T.V. of same model with the defective product and failing to do so, there has been a mighty deficiency of service in the part of the Opponents. Hence we answer the point no.1 in the affirmative.
11. The claim of damages computed at a figure of Rs. 1,50,000/- for not seeing the T.V. programmes, and the complainant’s children, not taking food leading to hospitalisation is ludicrous per se. The claim is imaginary, fanciful, bolstered up and we see no merit in the same. However, the record speaks, the customer parting with a massive sum of Rs.49,999/- for a product has been deprived of it’s utility and a reasonable sum has to be awarded for his deprival for a period of almost two years which we calculate at a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Hence we answer the point no.2 in partially affirmative.
12. Even though the O.P.no.1 has been clamouring to refund the price of the defective product in it’s versions, no fruitful stept has been taken to do the same. It has remained on papers only, a hollow promise, enjoying the complainant’s money for further business developments, whereby we answer the point no. 3 in negative and proceed to pass the following:
:: ORDER ::
- The complaint is allowed.
- The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 49,999/- ( the cost of the defective product) together with an interest @ 18% p.a. from 07-11-2012 ( The date of purchase)
Till the date of realisation.
- The Opponents are further jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deprieval of enjoyment of his usufructs of wealthy parted by him together with a cost of litigation @ Rs. 5,000/-
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 27th day of October-2016 )
Sd/- Sd/-
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Ex.P.1- Attested copy of the invoice.
- Ex.P.2- E Correspondence by complainant.
- Ex.P.3- to P.10 Further E correspondences by complainant
- Ex.P.11- Warranty card.
- Ex.P.12- Original of the invoice
Document produced by the Opponent/s
- Ex.R1.- Authority letter
Sd/- Sd/-
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
mv.
