BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.79 of 2016
Date of Instt. 15.02.2016
Date of Decision :29.11.2016
Gurtej Pal Singh S/o Sh. Charan Singh R/o House No. 252, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar City.
..........Complainant
Versus
Panasonic Showroom, Shalimar Market, Shakti Tower, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar City.
Panasonic Service Centre, Fairdeal Electronics, 56 Shakti Nagar, Jalandhar.
Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd, 12th Floor, Ambience Island NH-8, Gurgaon 122002, Haryana.
Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd, 6th Floor, SPIC Building, Annexe Mount Road, Guindy Chennai-600032.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. H.S. Kathar Adv., counsel for complainant.
Opposite Party No. 1 Exparte.
Sh.Vishal Chardhary Adv., counsel for OP No.2 to 4.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that complainant purchased the Panasonic Plasma 3D 42 ST30D TV on 2/7/2012 from the opposite party No.1 for Rs. 65,000/- vide invoice No. 712. The complainant asked about the warranty and guaranty of the above said Panasonic Plasma 3D 42 ST30D. The opposite party No.1 assured and promised, in case of any defect in the above said Panasonic Plasma 3D 42 ST30D, the opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.4 would be responsible and the said TV would be replace/ repair under warranty of three year. As per assurance, the complainant purchased the above said Panasonic Plasma 3D 42 ST30D. The complainant and his friends asked the opposite party No.1 regarding the service of the above said TV. The opposite party No.1 assured that all the service would be available always. At the time of purchase of the above said TV, my friends were present throughout when the transaction of sale purchase took place at the shop of the opposite party No.1.
2. That in the month of April 2015, the above said TV was causing trouble. The complainant contacted the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 demanded Rs. 10,000/- for change of one part of the said TV. On this, the complainant requested that the said product is under guaranty and the service would be provided by the opposite parties free of cost under warranty. But the complainant has to pay Rs. 5,000/- in advance to the opposite party No.1 for the said purpose but inspite of that the defective part of said TV has not been changed by the opposite parties. Infact the opposite parties are legally bound to rectify any defect that may arise during its functioning under the warranty period of three years. The complainant visited number of times at the office of the opposite party o.1 and opposite party No.2 and contacted the opposite parties, they put the matter pending one pretext or the others. But the opposite parties refused to repair the above said Panasonic Plasma 3D 42 ST30D. On 17/10/2015, the complainant has sent a legal notice to opposite parties. The opposite parties sent the reply of the said notice but indirectly they refused to accept the claim of the complainant and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties which gave rise to file the present complaint with a prayer that the opposite parties be directed to return the amount of Rs. 65,000/- price of the Panasonic Plasma 3D 42 ST30D TV alongwith interest to the complainant from the date of purchase and further opposite parties be directed to return Rs. 5,000/- alongwith interest from the date of receive which has been received in advance from the complainant to replace the said part of LED TV and further opposite parties be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties but despite service, opposite party No.1 did not come present and ultimately, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte.
5. OP No.2 to 4 appeared through counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as complainant has concealed the true and material facts from the Forum. The Plasma TV of complainant was not covered under warranty because the complainant before approaching opposite party No.2 in the month of April 2015 has got his Plasma TV repaired from some other unauthorized person/ source and not from the authorized service centre OP No.2 of answering opposite parties. As on inspection of the product by opposite party No.2 in the month of April 2015, the warranty seals were found broken. Due to this reason, the product was not covered under warranty and repair has to be on chargeable basis only. On approval of complainant for chargeable service, the service incharge/ engineer of opposite party No.2 checked the Plasma TV and found that one part namely “SS Board” needs replacement. But the said part was out of stock and was an expensive part. Accordingly opposite party No.2 took Rs. 5,000/- as advance payment for placing order for the required part and issued receipt for the same. As complainant has concealed the true fact regarding the breach of warranty condition issued by getting his TV repaired from some unauthorized source, therefore, complainant is not entitled for any relief from the Forum. It is further submitted that the answering opposite party is still ready to rectify the problem in the Plasma TV. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As availability of the required part was taking much time and complainant got served legal notice upon the opposite parties then answering opposite parties as a goodwill gesture gave offer to complainant for replacement of the TV with higher model in the same category and depreciation price of the present TV would be adjusted in the price of new TV and difference of amount would be paid by complainant. But complainant for the reason best known to him has refused to avail the said offer. The liability of the answering opposite party under the terms and conditions of the warranty was limited to the extent to set right the product by repairing or replacing the defective parts only, but complainant has committed breach of warranty conditions. No such assurance to replace the TV is given by the answering opposite party under the terms of the warranty. Even the complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. On merits, it is admitted that complainant has purchased the TV in question for amounting to Rs. 65,000/- remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 and then complainant examined Manwinderpal Singh who tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex. CW2/A and thereafter complainant closed his evidence.
5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite party No.2 to 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Nagpal, Branch Service Incharge Ex. OPA and then evidence of opposite party No. 2 to 4 closed by order vide order dated 28/10/2016.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. After taking into consideration, the respective submission of both the parties, one thing is admitted that the factum of purchase the Panasonic Plasma 3D 42 ST30D TV for amounting to Rs. 65,000/- is admitted by both the parties and it is also admitted by the opposite party that there is some defect in the TV set and accordingly, the same was brought to service centre of opposite party No.2 but it was found that the defect occurred during warranty period. But the complainant himself committed the mistake by getting it repaired from some unauthorized person and as such, he violated the conditions, therefore the product was not covered under the warranty and repair has to be made on the chargeable basis and it is also admitted by the opposite party that the complainant has paid Rs. 5,000/- in advance for purchase of a part of the TV and such receipt is proved on the file by the complainant Ex. C2 and further plea taken by the opposite party is that the part was required for replacement is not available and some long time is required for its availability and as such, alternative offer was given to the complainant for replacement of the TV with higher model for the same category and depreciation price would be adjusted in the price of the new TV and difference of the amount would be paid by the complainant and this offer was given by the opposite party by giving a reply of the notice i.e. reply is Ex. C8.
8. No doubt, the complainant has not established on the file any manufacturing defect in the TV by examining any expert witness but one thing is established that one part of the TV i.e. “SS Board” needs replacement. For that purpose, the opposite party No.2 took Rs. 5,000/- in advance from the complainant vide receipt Ex. C2. So, it means that complainant himself admitted that the TV in question had been got repaired by the complainant from unauthorized person and after admitting these factum, the complainant agreed to make advance payment of Rs. 5,000/- and remaining was agreed to be paid at the time of delivery of the TV and these factum have been incorporated with the receipt Ex. C2. This receipt is dated 27/4/2015 and TV for repair was brought by the complainant with opposite party No.2 in April 2015 but till the date of legal notice i.e. 17/10/2015, the TV was not repaired. It means that the opposite parties have taken about six months time for repairing the TV and thus there is obviously deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and further if opposite parties manufactured any product and put for sale in the market then it is the duty of the manufacturing firm to provide its parts whenever required to the customer but it is no excuse on the part of the opposite party that any parts of it is not easily available. So, it is again deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. So with this observation, we came to the conclusion that the opposite parties has not repaired the TV of the complainant without any reason and rhyme. So, accordingly opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation for harassment to the complainant and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to repair the TV in question of the complainant and if any part is required to be replaced, the same be also replaced on charges basis within one month from the date of receipt of order. If part is not available then Panasonic Plasma TV be replaced of same model same price free of costs and further opposite parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
29.11.2016 Member President
