| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.118 of 2015 Date of Institution: 27-02-2015 Date of Decision: 03-09-2015 Sh.Ashok Kumar Naib son of Shri Basant Lal Naib, R/o 35-A, Shastri Nagar, Gali Gurudwara Majitha Road, Amritsar. Complainant Versus - Reliance Digital, Circular Road, Trillium Mall, Amritsar.
- Panosonic India Private Limited, First Floor, A.B.W. Tower IFFCO Chowk, Sector 25, Gurgaon, Pin Code-122001 (Haryana) Head Office.
- Harman Enterprises, authorized service Centre (Panosonic), 325, Tilak Nagar, Near Anand Puriya Kutiya, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.A.K.Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Harpreet Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2: Ms.Preeti Mahajan, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.3: Exparte. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Ashok Kumar Naib under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that a 42” LED Model A-410-D for Rs.47,403.21 paisa on 23.10.2014 from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill dated 23.10.2014. Opposite Party No.2 is the manufacturer of the LED in question whereas Opposite Party No.3 is authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.2. Complainant alleges that soon after its purchase, said LED set in question started giving trouble to the complainant by one way or the other and the complainant complained the matter with Opposite Party No.2 on 8.2.2015 vide complaint No.R100215022422. Since 8.2.2015 said LED set is not working in any manner. Said complaint was forwarded by Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.3-authorised service centre. Thereafter, engineer of Opposite Party No.3 visited the house of the complainant on 10.2.2015 and after checking the LED set thoroughly, he disclosed that two major parts of LED set are to be replaced, but till today no body turned on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties and requested them to replace the said LED set as the same is under warranty period, but in vain. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties either to replace the LED set or to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.47,503.21 paisa alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 is just a retailer of various electronic goods including TV and is not involved in the manufacturing process of the product sold at its store. Thus, the Opposite Party No.1 can not remove the alleged defects in the product purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 as the service agreement of the product sold was with manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party No.2 and not with Opposite Party No.1. Thus, there is no privity of contract between complainant and Opposite Party No.1, so the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is not leally maintainable and liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.1. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.2 on 10.2.2015 that ‘LED not working’ and accordingly service engineer visited the premises of the complainant to check the LED in question. The service engineer on visiting, found problem in ‘A-Board’ which required replacement. As the said part was out of stock with the service centre at that time, thus service engineer advised complainant to wait for few days and as soon the said part is received, it would be duly replaced. The service centre received the part in the beginning of March, 2015 and called the complainant to seek appointment for rectification of the LED in question, but the complainant for the reasons best known to him refused to get the LED rectified. The Opposite Party No.2 is still ready to rectify the problem in the LED, so there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any expert evidence, the claim can not be allowed. There is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 or its service centre has never denied after sale service and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Opposite Party No.3 served, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, so Opposite Party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.4.2015 of this Forum.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Kunish Anand, Store Manager Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1
- Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rahul Nagpal, Branch Service Incharge Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased 42” LED (Panasonic) Model A-410-D for Rs.47,403.21 paisa on 23.10.2014 from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill dated 23.10.2014 (Ex.C2). Complainant submitted that said LED started giving trouble and the complainant reported the matter to Customer Care Centre of Opposite Party No.2 on 8.2.2015 vide complaint No.R100215022422. Said complaint was forwarded by Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.3-authorized service centre. Engineer of Opposite Party No.3 visited the house of the complainant on 10.2.2015 and after checking the LED set reported that two major parts of LED set are to be replaced, but thereafter, no body turned on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 to replace those parts of LED set and to make the LED set fully functional, even that the LED has warranty period upto 22.10.2015. All this shows that the LED set in question has inherent/ manufacturing defect, but the Opposite Parties neither replaced the said LED set nor repaired the same. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that they are only the retailer and sold the product manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and it is the Opposite Party No.2 who have to provide the warranty/ guarantee and service during the warranty period of product and the Opposite Party No.1 has nothing to do with the service/ repair or replacement of the LED set during warranty period. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1
- Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.2 is that the complainant lodged a complaint with Opposite Party No.2 on 10.2.2015 that ‘LED not working’ and accordingly service engineer visited the premises of the complainant to check the LED in question. The service engineer on visiting, found problem in ‘A-Board’ which required replacement. As the said part was out of stock with the service centre at that time, thus service engineer advised complainant to wait for few days and as soon the said part is received, it would be duly replaced. The service centre received the part in the beginning of March, 2015 and called the complainant to seek appointment for rectification of the LED in question, but the complainant for the reasons best known to him refused to get the LED rectified. The Opposite Party No.2 is still ready to rectify the problem in the LED. The complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing/ inherent defect in the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert that LED in question is not repairable, so there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 qua the complainant.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased aforesaid 42” LED Panasonic set on 23.10.2014 vide Invoice Ex.C2 from Opposite Party No.1. Said LED set became defective and the complainant lodged the report to Customer Care Centre of Opposite Party No.2 on 8.2.2015 vide complaint No.R100215022422 Ex.C6. Resultantly, service engineer of the Opposite Party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and checked LED in question and reported that ‘A-Board’ of the LED required replacement. At that time, when problem arose in the LED of the complainant, the said part was out of stock with the service centre. Said part became available with Opposite Party No.2 in March, 2015 and the Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant for appointment to rectify the LED in question, but the complainant refused to get the LED rectified from the Opposite Party as the complainant demanded replacement of the LED. During the warranty period, manufacturer of the product is liable to replace the defective parts, if any, of the product and to make it fully functional unless there is report on record from the expert/ technician that said product is not repairable as it has inherent/ manufacturing defect. The complainant could not produce any evidence to prove that the LED of the complainant is not repairable or that it has inherent/ manufacturing defect. Opposite Party No.2 is still ready to replace the ‘A Board’ of the LED of the complainant and to make it fully functional.
- Resultantly, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 to make the LED of the complainant fully functional after replacement of the defective parts of the LED in question, without charging any amount from the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if the LED in question is not repairable, even after changing its parts, then the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are liable to replace the LED in question with new one of same make and model or to refund the amount of the LED to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 03-09-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
