BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.511 of 2015
Date of Instt. 02.12.2015
Date of Decision : 04.08.2016
Rajinder Kaur aged about 52 years wife of Manjinder Singh R/o near Gian Kesari Hospital, GT Road, Ghuman Colony, Bhogpur District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1.Shalimar Marketing, Shakti Tower, near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.
2.Fair Deal Electronics, Kothi No.5, Shakti Nagar, backside Civil Hospital, Jalandhar through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.
3.Panasonic India Ltd., 12th Floor, Ambience Island, National Highway-8, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122002 through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for the OP No.3.
Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased LED model Panasonic LED 50BC for Rs.67,000/- which included VAT and surcharge from OP No.1 vide invoice No.1188 dated 19.10.2013. Three years warranty was given by the OPs for the above said product. On 9.11.2015 within warranty period the LED became out of order. Complainant brought the defect into the notice of OP No.1 who directed the complainant to approach OP No.2. Accordingly, complainant approached OP No.2 on 9.11.2015 and told them that the LED has became out of order and not working. Engineer of the OP No.2 came to complainant who checked the LED and told the complainant that its panel has become defective but the penal of same model is not available with them, so, it can not be replaced and further told the complainant, if the payment/demand draft to the tune of Rs.13,791/- be given to the OPs, the LED shall be replaced with warranty from the date of purchase. The complainant submitted that LED is within warranty but even then OPs No.2 & 3 refused to repair the LED or to replace the same. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to repair or to replace the LED. She has also claimed compensation and litigation.
2. Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that complainant purchased the LED on 19.10.2013 and first complaint was lodged on 9.11.2015. The OP checked the LED and found problem in penal of LED which required to be replaced but the said penal of the LED was not available. The OP in order to resolve the problem offered replacement of LED by applying 25% depreciation on the purchase price of the LED as the LED was more than 2 years old. Therefore, complainant was to pay only Rs.7410/- towards depreciation of LED value and new LED of equivalent model was offered to the complainant but instead of waiting for the availability of the panel of LED, complainant filed the complaint. OP No.3 denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs No.1 & 2 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of her complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed her evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and closed evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Panasonic LED from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 19.10.2013 Ex.C1. Complainant submitted that the said product has three years warranty as per warranty card Ex.C2 and certificate of warranty Ex.C4. On 9.11.2015 the said LED became out of order. Complainant brought the defect into the notice of OP No.1 who directed the complainant to approach OP No.2 authorized service centre. Accordingly, complainant approached No.2 on 9.11.2015 and handed over the said LED to OP No.2 vide job sheet Ex.C3. OP No.2 admitted that the said LED is within warranty i.e. extended warranty as is evident from the job sheet Ex.C3 but the OP No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.13,791/- from the complainant for replacement of LED as is evident from job sheet Ex.C3. The area manager of the OP told the complainant, the LED shall be replaced if the complainant pays Rs.13,791/-. Complainant submitted that LED is within warranty period but even then OPs No.2 & 3 refused to repair the LED or to replace the same. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the OP No.3 is that complainant purchased the LED on 19.10.2013 and first complaint was lodged on 9.11.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C3. The OP checked the LED and found problem in penal of LED which required to be replaced but the said penal of the LED was not available. The OP in order to resolve the problem, offered replacement of LED by applying 25% depreciation on the purchase price of the LED as the LED was more than 2 years old. Therefore, complainant was to pay only Rs.7410/- towards depreciation of LED value and new LED of equivalent model was offered to the complainant but instead of waiting for the availability of the panel of LED, complainant filed the complaint. The OP has never denied after sale services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant. OP No.3 denied that the area manager told to the complainant to pay draft of Rs.13,791/- for replacement of LED. Rather, complainant was asked to pay Rs.7410/- towards depreciation value of the product as the product was more than two years old and offered to replace the LED with new one of the similar make and model. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the aforesaid Panasonic LED from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 19.10.2013 Ex.C1 with three years warranty as is evident from certificate of warranty card issued by the OP No.3 Ex.C4 and as per Panasonic Diwali Offer Ex.C2. The said LED became defective/out of order on 9.11.2015. Therefore, complainant approached the OP No.2 through OP No.1 on 9.11.2015 and handed over the LED to OP No.2 vide job sheet Ex.C3. In this job sheet also OP No.2 has admitted that the LED of the complainant was within extended warranty and after checking OP No.2 gave remarks on this job sheet that the LED requires panel replacement and the panel of the LED of the complainant is not available. So, they gave in writing to the complainant for replacement of the LED on payment of Rs.13,791/-. However, OP No.3 manufacturer of the LED in question in their written version as well as in their evidence have stated that the OP No.3 is ready to replace the LED of the complainant on payment of Rs.7410/- only towards depreciation value of the product as the product was more than two years old but the complainant filed the present complaint.
10. The OP nowhere in their written statement as well as in their evidence i.e. affidavit of Rahul Nagpal, Branch Service Incharge, Panasonic India Pvt Limited Ex.OPW1/A, have denied that the LED in question was not within warranty. Counsel for the OP only in arguments submitted that the warranty of the LED in question was for one year whereas the entire documentary evidence produced on record by the complainant i.e. certificate of warranty Ex.C4 issued by OP No.3 fully proved that the LED is model 50BC and as per the Panasonic Diwali offer Ex.C2, this model has three years warranty. So, the LED of the complainant was within warranty when it became defective on 9.11.2015. So, the OP was liable either to replace the panel of the LED of the complainant without charging any amount and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant or to replace the LED with new one of same make and model without charging any amount or to refund the price of the LED to the complainant.
11. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint with cost and the OP No.3 is directed to replace the LED of the complainant with new one of the same make and model as the panel of the said LED is not available with the OP, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The OP No.3 is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for harassment. OP No.3 is also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
04.08.2016 Member President
