West Bengal

Bankura

CC/33/2023

Sri Amit Karmakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor/Owner, Nilima Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sandip Chakrabarty

09 Nov 2023

ORDER

   IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 33/2023

                                                                                                  Date of Filing: 11.04.2023                  

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                             Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.                                    

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate  Sandip Chakrabarti

For the O.P.: Ld. Advocate Rajib Chatterjee

 

Complainant 

Sri Amit Karmakar, S/O Sri Sukumar Karmakar, R/O Vill-Taljhitka, P.O.Kesiara, P.S.G. Ghati, Dist. Bankura, PIN-722 133

Opposite Party

1.Proprietor/Owner, Nilima Electronics, Vill, P.O.&P.S.G. Ghati, Bankura-722 133

2.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor ‘SPIC BUILDING’ ANNEXE, No.88, Mount Rd, Guindy, Chennai-600 032

 JUDGEMENT                   

                                                                                                                                        

Dated:09-11-2023

The case is fixed for delivery of Judgement.

 The Complainant’s case is that he purchased one LCD TV, Model No.THL 32 C 5D, Sl. No.2QAV18437, dt.25/05/2013 for Rs.25,900/- from O.P.1 on proper receipt but after five months some colour problem in the T.V. set was started which was however cured by the Company Technician of O.P.2/Manufacturing Co. Thereafter on 1^st August, 2014 again the defect was detected and according to the T.V. Mechanic the problem was due to panel defect which would cost Rs.18,000/- as the repairing cost and the Complainant has to pay the same as the Warrantee period of one year has expired. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                          Contd……p/2

Page: 2

Both O.P.s separately filed written version to contest the case contending inter alia that none of them has any liability for service and repair of the T.V. set of the Complainant beyond the expiry of the Warranty period and it is now up to the Complainant to get the defective T.V. set repaired at his own cost and both O.P.s will render service assistance to the same.

                                                                                    -: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents from both sides the Commission finds that earlier C.C. Case No.2/2015 was filed before this Commission but the same was dismissed for default on 09/02/2023 and the present case has been filed on the same cause of action which is maintainable under the law.

Admittedly panel defect was detected according to the service report after the expiry of the Warrantee Period and as such Complainant has to bear the repairing / replacement cost alone. As stated above the T.V. set had earlier some colour problem after five months of the purchase and though it was cured at the cost of O.P. as it was within the Warrantee Period but after expiry of the Warranty period the T.V. set also developed  panel defect. It shows that the T.V. set since the inception of purchase was defective one otherwise within a span of such short period such panel defect could not have occurred.

Both O.P.s being the Dealer and Manufacturer have to shoulder the product liability even beyond the period of Warrantee if the product itself has some inherent defect related to the manufacturing cause.

At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate for both O.P.s frankly submitted before the Commission that they are ready and willing to undertake the service and repairing of the T.V. set of the Complainant sacrificing their interest to some lesser extent.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant did not however raise any objection to such arrangement.

                                                                                                                                                                                              Contd…….p/3

Page: 3

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the willingness of both parties the Commission is of the view that it would be fair for ends of justice to bear the entire cost of repairing of the defective T.V. set equally by the Complainant and the O.P.s. and as such the Commission directs the Complainant and both O.P.s to contribute Rs.5,000/- each for the same.

Accordingly it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is disposed of on contest by directing the Complainant to pay Rs.5,000/- and O.P.1 & O.P.2 to pay Rs.10,000/- jointly and severally as the cost of repairing of the T.V. set within one month from this date in default both O.P.s will pay to the Complainant their share of contribution of Rs.10,000/-.

Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.

 

 ____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER