DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.85/2008
Sh. K. Kanan
R/o H.No.5, Shanti Vihar, Moti Bagh,
New Delhi-110021 ….Complainant
Versus
1. R. K. Bhutani & Sons,
Shop No.84, Khanna Market,
Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi-110003
2. Aditya Global Services
Authorized Service Centre
K-4 Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-110024
3. Panasonic India Ltd.
C-52, Phase-2,
Noida Uttar Pradesh-201305 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 07.02.08 Date of Order : 27.08.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased a CTV, ’29, 29F J20 bearing chassis No.RK5343100040 on 12.07.2005 from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 for a sum of Rs.20,500/-. The said T.V. set started giving problem in the end of June, 2006 and the same stopped functioning in the first week of July, 2006. Accordingly, he lodged a complaint (AGS: P1146) on the telephone no. provided by the dealer. Two men from the customer care came on 03.08.2006. After inspection they stated that they will take the T.V. for repair at their shop. The T.V. was returned back on 20.08.2006 and the OP No.1 charged Rs.1550/. On the same day the T.V. stopped functioning. Again when he lodged a complaint no. ASG4539, the men came from the customer care on 22.08.2006 and took the T.V. to their workshop. The T.V. was returned on 31.08.2006 but again the T.V. stopped functioning on 02.09.06. He lodged a complaint no. ASG4651. The T.V. was not repaired because it was defective and of sub-standard quality. The OP failed to replace the defective T.V. He sent a legal notice on 21.09.2006. After legal notice the OPs contacted him and again the T.V. was repaired in the month of October, 2006 and it went out of order again. He filed a complaint No.AFG5845. The said complaint was never attended by the OP. Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to replace the T.V. or refund Rs.20,500/- as the T.V. price.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant towards mental agony and tension caused to the Complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant as litigation charges.
OP No.1 & 2 have been proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.09.2011 passed by our predecessors.
OP No.3 in the written statement has inter-alia stated that they had not sold the defective T.V. to the Complainant. The T.V. was duly installed at the residence of the Complainant. The T.V. was in perfect working condition. Over a period of time, the Complainant mishandled the television and due to rough usage including improper stabilization of the electricity and voltage fluctuation the T.V. developed certain problems as a result of which the same was sent by the Complainant to the service centre. The service centre duly attended the complaints of the Complainant and every time the T.V. was repaired and delivered to the Complainant with clear instructions that he should ensure that stabilizer is installed so that fluctuation of the electricity /voltage could be controlled and there is no direct impact on the television but the Complainant failed to pay any heed to the said advice of the service centre of the OP. The Complainant was himself negligent in handling the television. OP has stated that after more than one year of the purchase of the said television set the T.V. started giving problem in the end of June, 2006. It is further empathically disputed and refuted that in the first week of July, 2006 the television set stopped functioning. The Complainant met with OP No.1 on 08.07.06 and reported about non-functioning of the said television set. The Complainant’s complaint was duly attended by the OP’s service centre and after carrying out necessary repairs i.e. change of ICs the same was returned to the Complainant on 31.08.06. It was again fluctuation of the voltage which had resulted in non-functioning of the television and damage of ICs and OP advised the Complainant to ensure the proper stabilizer be installed so that the television set works properly. The service engineer visited the residence of the Complainant on 07.10.06 on account of non-functioning fo the television. The necessary repairs were carried out and the television set was delivered to the Complainant in the working condition. OP has stated that they are not liable to replace the said television or refund an amount of Rs.20,500/- to the Complainant. OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
No rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.3 has been filed by the Complainant.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, OP No.3 was proceeded exparte on 17.08.2016.
Written arguments have been filed by the Complainant.
We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Parties have failed to mark exhibit nos./annexures nos. on the corresponding documents.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had purchased a T.V. from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 on 12.07.2005 for a sum of Rs.20,500/- (for the purpose of identification we mark the document as Annexure-A). The Complainant filed job sheets dated 03.08.2006, 23.08.2006 & 07.10.2006 [we mark the job sheets as Annexure-B (colly]. The service centre of OP No.3 repaired the T.V. and the same was delivered to the Complainant.
In view of the above it transpires from the documents submitted by the Complainant himself that he had purchased the T.V. on 12.07.2005 and the job sheets Annexure –B (colly) filed by the Complainant shows that the first complaint was made by the Complainant on 03.08.06. Period of warranty is not made known to us. However, the problem arose in the T.V. in question after about one year. Hence, there could not be any manufacturing defect in the T.V. The Complainant also made the payment of Rs.1550/- on 20.08.2006 (copy Annexure-B) for repair of the T.V. The Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 27.08.2016.
