BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.115 of 2017
Date of Instt. 20.04.2017
Date of Decision: 13.02.2018
Sarabjit Kaur aged about years W/o S. Sajjan Singh R/o H. No.145, Lubana Colony, Sunshine Avenue, Ladhewali, Jalandhar City, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Shalimar Marketing, Shakti Tower, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through Authorized Person/Dealer.
2. Fairdeal Electronics, Authorized Service Center for Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Kothi No.56, Shakti Nagar, Jalandhar City through Authorized Person/Dealer.
3. Mr. Rahul Nagpal, Branch Service Manager, Ludhiana Branch, Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor “Raja Rice Tower”, SCO-1, Gain Singh Rarewala Market, Near Fortune Hotel, Ludhiana.
4. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, Spic House, Annexe, No.88 Anna Salai, Chennai-600032.
..….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Smt. RP Bal, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv Counsel for the OP No.2 to 4.
Order
Harvimal Dogra (Member)
1. The complainant Sarabjit Kaur has filed the present complaint under 'The Consumer Protection Act', 1986 against the OPs, on the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service with the prayer to direct the OPs to repair the Plasma TV of the complainant or to compensate the complainant alongwith interest and to pay Rs.25,000/- for mental and physical harassment and to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges and any other relief, this Forum deems fit and proper may be passed in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has purchased a Panasonic Plasma 3D 42ST30D TV on 28.08.2012 from the OP No.1 and at the time of purchasing the same, the OP assured the complainant that the Plasma TV is of good quality and has the latest features and it will go long for about 20 years as it is of high quality. Thereafter, the complainant purchased the said Plasma TV. That on 10.01.2017, when the complainant alongwith his family members was watching the TV program, the above said TV suddenly shut down and not turned on again. The complainant tried to on the TV, but all his efforts failed, then the complainant contacted the OP No.2 i.e. Panasonic Customer Care helpline through telephone. Then on 14.01.2017, Authorized Engineer namely Ram Krishan from OP came to the house of the complainant to repair the Plasma TV. He checked the TV and removed the SN Board of the TV for its repair and assured the complainant that he will get it repair from the company and fit the same in the Plasma TV or if needed, he will replace this SN Board with new one. Thereafter, the complainant many times contacted the OP No.2 on phone and they have told the complainant that they have sent the SN Board of Plasma TV to the main Service Centre, Gurgaon for its repair. That thereafter, the complainant again forward the reminder in the Panasonic Customer Care Centre for the repair of his Plasma TV. The complainant received a letter from the Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana Branch, i.e. OP No.3 dated 17.03.2017, in which OP stated that the SN Board of Plasma TV is defected and needs replacement and currently this part are discontinued and no longer available and offered to replace the product and also offered 90% depreciation on the product. The complainant further stated that the OPs, they are deficient in service as they created a great mental agony to him, hence this complaint was filed by the complainant.
3. After the formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written statement, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed with the mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich her at the cost of answering OP by filing frivolous claim. The answering OP is not at all liable as the Plasma TV was out of warranty on 14.01.2017. The first and only complaint has been lodged by the complainant on 14.01.2017 after more than 4-1/2 years of purchase of Plasma TV. The service engineer visited the premises of the complainant to check the Plasma TV and found that the SN Board of the TV needs to be replaced. The defected part was not available with the answering OP as the model of the TV in question has been discontinued. Hence, the product could not be repaired. It is further alleged that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the parties. The answering OPs have unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs. (It is further alleged that the product in question Plasma TV is out of warranty and any defect arising after the expiry of warranty period, the answering OP is only liable to rectify it on chargeable basis only, subject to availability of parts. There is no inherent defect in the product as it worked perfectly without any complaint for 4-1/2 years and further averred that the SN Board of the Plasma TV developed some problem on 14.01.2017 and needs to be replaced but said part was not available as the product in question was quite old i.e. 4-1/2 year old and it has been discontinued in production by the answering OP. It is further submitted that the answering OP as a goodwill gesture offered refund of price after 90% depreciation as per the depreciation policy of the answering OP as the product in question was more then 4 years old and further submitted that the liability of the answering OP after the expiry of warranty period is limited to the extent to set right the product by repairing or replacing the defective parts subject to availability of parts and on chargeable basis only. Thus no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP arises.) It is further averred that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Forum as she has concealed the true and material facts. The complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands. On merits, para No.1 of the complaint is wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied for want of knowledge that the complainant has purchased Plasma TV on 28.08.2012 from OP No.1 It is correct that TV in question is of best quality, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. Parties were granted opportunities to lead their respective evidence. The complainant herself tendered into evidence her duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and then closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP No.2 to 4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. We have considered the case of the complainant as well as the plea taken by the OPs and find the fact that the complainant purchased a Panasonic Plasma 3D 42ST30D TV on 28.08.2012 from OP No.1. The complainant alleged that on 10.01.2017, when the complainant alongwith her family was watching the TV program, the above said TV suddenly shut down and did not turn on again. The complainant contacted the OP No.2 i.e. Panasonic Customer Care Helpline through telephone on 14.01.2017, then the authorized engineer namely Ram Krishan from OP came to the house of the complainant to repair the Plasma TV and the TV was checked and SN Board of the TV was removed for repair. The SN Board was further sent to main service centre Gurgaon for its repair. The complainant received a letter form Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana dated 17.03.2017, in which the OP No.3 stated that SN Board of Plasma TV is defected and needs replacement. Currently, this part is no longer available and offered to replace the product and 90% depreciation is applicable, this letter is available on the file, which is Ex.C-3, but the complainant did not agree and filed a complaint in the Consumer Forum.
8. We are of the considered view that the OPs are required to make the product functional within warranty period, if the defect is not repairable, then the product is to be replaced or the price refunded. Now, in the present case, the TV remained functional for 4-1/2 years, but on 10.01.2017, it produced some defect and OPs stated that SN Board was defected and its need to be replaced, but the said part was not available with the company. It is paramount duty of the OPs to repair the TV, but if the part is not available, then the complainant is not at fault. In the present case, though the warranty of TV has expired and as per the version of the complainant, the defect occurred after 4-1/2 years from the date of purchase. According to our view, the life of the TV is 15 to 20 years and after the expiry of the warranty, it is right of the purchaser to get repair done from the Service Station after paying the charges and also after paying the charges of the spare parts, but if the company categorically stated that any part of the TV is not available, then the said product of the purchaser will become dead, where will the complainant go. She cannot get the TV repaired from any other company because spare parts are only available with OPs company. So, we find that it is paramount duty of the manufacturing company to provide all the parts of the TV till the life of such product and to make TV set functional and as such, the complainant is entitled to the compensation on account of harassment and mental agony. Thus, the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs.
9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to repair the TV on payment, if the parts are not available, then the OPs are directed to refund the amount of TV i.e. Rs.60,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint, till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
13.02.2018 Member President
