BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 22 of 2018
Date of Institution : 10.1.2018
Date of Decision : 31.10.2018.
Pardeep son of Sh. Om Parkash, aged 30 years, resident of Domino Pizza street, Bhagat Singh Colony, Barnala road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Punjab Radio, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
2. Panasonic Service Plaza, Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa District Sirsa.
3. Head Office- Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 11th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurugram, District Gurugram.-122 002
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased one LCD 2TAN 10701 + Wall stand, Model L3253D from the showroom of opposite party on 27.2.2013 vide bill No.2844 dated 27.2.2013 for a sum of Rs.17,900/- with warrantee of three years of the LCD and five years of the parts of the LCD. In this way the warrantee of the parts is up to 26.2.2018. That in the month of August, 2017 the supply part of the LCD became defective upon which on the asking of op no.1 he contacted with op no.3 on telephone on 9.11.2017 and stated about the defective part of the LCD and requested to supply new supply part of the LCD being in warrantee period of five years. The op no.2 stated on telephone to get a new LCD from opposite party no.1 after paying Rs.17,900/- due to non availability of the model of old LCD and the above said part is not available with them. Thereafter, op sent a letter on 15.11.2017 wherein it was reiterated that the part is not available with them. The complainant again requested the opposite parties to provide part and stated that without this part his LCD set is useless and asked to provide the part as per its warrantee of five years but the ops refused to supply the same. The complainant made several rounds to the ops no.1 and 2 after leaving his work but they gave only one reply that they cannot give the part. In this way, the ops have caused mental tension and financial loss to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply to the effect that the unit component is old and its spare parts are not getting manufactured now. Since the component is not available, the unit is beyond repair. It is further submitted that the customer purchased LED TV on 27.2.2013 and as per the date of purchase only standard warrantee of one year was applicable on his LED TV. The complainant raised a complaint vide Job No. R091117927818 where P Board was found defective and due to non availability of required part for repair unit cannot be repaired and they have to go for alternate solution in that situation. As per warrantee clause number 22, their team offered commercial solution to customer i.e. replacement of LED TV by applying the depreciation on it. They offered upgraded model i.e. TH-32E200DX in replacement for which customer has to pay Rs.17,925/-. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1, copy of letter dated 15.11.2017 Ex.C1 and copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C2. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Arjun Tanwar Ex.R1.
4. We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. It is proved fact on record that complainant had purchased a LCD TV for a sum of Rs.17,900/- from opposite party no.1 with a warrantee of three years of the LCD and five years of its parts. It is also proved fact on record that supply part became defective, as a result of which he approached to the ops but ops used to postpone the matter on the ground that said part is not available with them. The perusal of the written reply and evidence of ops reveal that they have never refused to replace part but however due to non available of the part, they were handicapped to replace the part and made LCD of the complainant defect free. The perusal of the written reply as well as evidence of ops also reveal that they have made an offer to replace the LED of the complainant with a new make and latest model for a sum of Rs.17,925/- after deducting the depreciation of the LCD of the complainant though complainant did not agree to this proposal of the ops due to his economic hardship to buy new LCD. The plea of the complainant appears to be genuine, but however, due to non availability of the parts, the complainant has been deprived from availing the facility of the LCD which he purchased for the enjoyment of his family.
6. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund 50% amount of the LCD in question to the complainant or to adjust this amount in purchase of a new model of the same by the complainant. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the payable amount from the date of order till actual realization. The complainant will have to hand over the LCD in question to the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:31.10.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
