DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1671/2015
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAVI KUMAR S/o LATE SH. GIANI RAM,
R/o H. No. 83, VILLAGE-BAKOLI,
DELHI-110036. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. SARGAM ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,
1981, RAILWAY ROAD,
NARELA, DELHI-110040.
2. PANASONIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY No.-8,
GURUGRAM (GURGAON), HARYANA. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 21.12.2015
Date of decision:04.10.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that on 16.03.2014, the complainant went to the shop of OP-1 for purchasing a new LED TV and accordingly the shopkeeper of OP-1 suggested to the complainant for purchasing the Panasonic LED TV by disclosing some new advance features and believing upon the
CC No.1671/2015 Page 1 of 6
words of OP-1, the complainant purchased the Panasonic LED TV 40 B6D vide Sr. No.13295422 for a sum of Rs.47,000/- against invoice no.2165 dated 16.03.2014 with 2 years warrantee. The complainant further alleged that after sometime, the said LED TV found some picture quality problem and in this regard to display of the LED TV and to remove the said problem on 30.08.2015, the complainant contacted to toll free no.1800-108-1333 of OP-2 and requested to remove the said problem and accordingly OP-2 sent one of his worker at the premises of the complainant against complaint no.R071215025583. After that one engineer came at the premises of the complainant and removed a fault of LED TV and also charged Rs.1,145/- as installation of a part in the said LED TV vide cash invoice no.883 but the complainant was shocked when he found the problem was same after repairing of such LED TV. Thereafter, the complainant many times approached OP-2 telephonically and requested to rectify the problem of his LED TV but all the requests of the complainant were fallen in deaf years. The complainant further alleged that OP-2 did not repair the said LED TV of the complainant and neither removed the problem of the LED TV/exchanges nor refunded the amount of the LED TV and the said LED TV is still lying faulty with the complainant and the complainant further alleged that the complainant has suffered a loss and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
CC No.1671/2015 Page 2 of 6
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the cost of the LED TV i.e. Rs.47,000/- paid to OPs as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing him mental pain, agony and has also sought Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. OP-1 & OP-2 have been contesting the case and filed their separate reply. In its reply, OP-1 submitted that the complainant has purchased one LED TV manufactured by Panasonic i.e. OP-2 on 16.03.2014 from OP-1 vide cash receipt no.2165 for a sum of Rs.47,000/- and the complainant was given sealed pack and new Panasonic LED TV by OP-1 and was fully satisfied at the time of purchase and LED TV also worked satisfactorily for 20 months before registering 1st complaint on 30.08.2015 to OP-2 and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP-1 further submitted that an amount of Rs.1,145/- as service charges was paid by the complainant to Versatile Care is also authorized service centre for Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. OP-2 and the complainant has directly made complaint to OP-2 and principal service provider i.e. OP-2 and technician visited at the premises of the complainant was authorized by them which OP-1 has no knowledge. OP-1 further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. In its reply, OP-2 submitted that the case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.OP-2 further submitted that the LED TV
CC No.1671/2015 Page 3 of 6
has been made functional to the satisfaction on the complaint of the complainant and thus the complaint of the complainant was duly attended.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 and denied the contentions of OP-1 which has been taken in the reply of OP-1.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of cash receipt no.2165 dated 16.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.47,000/- issued by OP-1, copy of retail invoice no.883 dated 24.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,145/- issued by OP-2.
7. On the other hand Sh. Manoj Kumar, Authorized Representative of OP-1 and Sh. Anshuman Kashyap, Authorized Representative of OP-2 filed their separate affidavits in evidence which were as per line of defence taken by OPs in their replies. OP-1 & OP-2 have also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OP-1 & OP-2 in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant.The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant and it appears that there has been a manufacturing and inherent defect in the disputed LED TV. Moreover, it is hard to believe that the complainant will lodge a false complaint against the newly purchased LED TV immediately after
CC No.1671/2015 Page 4 of 6
purchase. Admittedly the disputed LED TV was within warrantee period of 2 years as mentioned on the invoice and this fact is not disputed by OPs in their written statement/reply. Thus, charging of an amount of Rs.1,145/- by the representative of OP to repair the disputed LED TV on the 1st complaint dated 30.08.2015 of the complainant is illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Furthermore, the complainant has categorically stated that he approached OP-2 telephonically and requested to rectify the problem of his LED TV and all the requests of the complainant were fallen in deaf ears. It clearly shows that still the disputed LED TV was not repaired properly and was having defects therein. It shows that there is some manufacturing and inherent defect in the disputed LED TV. Failure on the part of OP-2 to rectify the problem in LED TV or to refund the price of the LED TV amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Accordingly,OP-2 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP-2 is directed as under:
i) To pay/refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- being the depreciated cost of the disputed LED TV on return of disputed LED TV alongwith original bill and job sheet.
ii) To pay/refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,145/- which was charged by the representative of OP-2.
CC No.1671/2015 Page 5 of 6
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
iv) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 4th day of October, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.1671/2015 Page 6 of 6
