Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/61/2015

P.Samyuktha, W/o. Gowri Sankar Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/S. Tirumala Music Centre Private Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

I.C.S. Reddy

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:- 09-12-2015                                                                                                              Order Date: -29-07-2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

    FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND  

SIXTEEN

C.C.No.61/2015

Between

Smt.P.Samyuktha,

W/o. D.Gowri Sankar Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 28 years,

Residing at Door No.13,

Red Builders,

S.V.university Campus,

Tirupati-02.                                                                             …. Complainant

 

And

1.The Managing Director,

   M/s. Tirumala Music Centre Pvt, Ltd.,

   Holding its place of business

   At D.No.20-2-626/B/10,

   Vanaja Krishna Residency,

   Near Srinivasam Complex,

   Tirumala by-pass road, Tiruapati,

   Chittoor District.

 

2.M/S. Panasonic Company,A.V.C

   Net works India Cor.Ltd.,

   Phase-II, Noida,

   Rep. by its Managing Director,

   Utter Pradesh State,

   PIN- 201305.                                                                       …. Opposite parties

                         

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 15.07.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. I.C.S. Reddy , counsel for the complainant and opposite party no.1 in person and Sri. A. Suresh, counsel for the opposite party no.2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to pass an order directing the opposite parties to provide service to the television purchased by the complainant and to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards  mental agony suffered by the complainant and for deficiency of service and to pay costs of the complaint.

           2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant purchased 3D LED TV TH-L-42ET5D television on 05.08.2012 for Rs. 68,900/- from the first opposite party show room which is manufactured by the second party. The said television is having warranty period of one year. After using some period the said television gave some trouble and the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 for getting it repair of the said TV. But the opposite party failed to respond and provide the service to the TV. At last the complainant approached the service centre on 09.05.2015, but they failed to rectify the defect in the television, even though she is ready to pay the service charges because as on the date of 09.05.2015, the warranty period was expired. Hence at last the complainant gave legal notice calling upon the opposite parties to rectify the defect  and after receipt of the same the opposite party no.1 failed to gave reply and opposite party no.2 gave reply with all false allegations and failed to rectify the same which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Hence she filed the present complaint.

          3.  The opposite party no.1 came in to appearance and filed the written version and contended that they sold the above said television to the complainant on 05.08.2012 under the invoice amount of Rs.68,900/- the warranty period of the said television was ended on 05.08.2013 and also stated that the complainant never approached them with any complaint regarding the said television  and also the complainant was in direct touch with the opposite party no.2 who is the manufacturer  and also made the correspondence with opposite party no.2 only. And further contended that she used the television for 33 months which is beyond the warranty period of 1 year and the complaint was made by the complainant to the opposite party no.2. In fact it is only the opposite party no.2 which is supposed to look in to the complaint. The opposite parties further contended that the complainant never approached them with any complaint in the T.V even if she had approached, this opposite party would only be able to forward the complaint to the manufacturer or its authorized service centre or manufacturer who has to take subsequent action. And also stated that the complainant had not approached the Forum with clean hands because the complainant had approached the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 took the complaint on record and dispatched a  technician to the complainant place. On inspection it was found that the board was to be replaced. This fact was told to the complainant. An estimate of RS.6,047/- was also given by the opposite party no.2 to the complainant same was expected by the complainant. Later the opposite party no.2 found that specific board was not available and hence the opposite party no.2 gave following the offers.      

          Option 1: New product will be delivered and diff to be paid

                            by the customer after deducting 70% of invoice value

                           as depreciation.

 

          Option 2: refund to customer after deducting 70% depreciation

                           on the invoice value of Rs. 68900/-.

 

          But however both the offers were rejected by the complainant.  The opposite party no.1 further contended that while keeping the offer alive the opposite party no.2 made their best efforts to get the board. Finally the opposite party no.2 was able to secure the said board. When this was informed to the complainant it was refused by the complainant.

          4. The opposite party no.1 further contended that the complainant cannot throw blame on them as she approached the op no.2 directly to resolve the issue and further contended that when the opposite party no.2 was informed to the complainant when the spare part was ready to get the replacement and went to his place to replace the same was rejected by the complainant. Hence the opposite party no.1 is a complete stranger to the communication between the complainant and opposite party no.2.  It is the responsibility of the opposite party no.2 as a manufacturer to provide service through their technician or replacement. Hence this opposite party no.1 is no where concerned with the above complaint. Hence the complaint against opposite party no.1 is liable to be dismissed.      The opposite party no.2 filed the written version by admitting the purchase of the television by the complainant in the showroom of the opposite party no.1 which was manufactured by them  and further contended that the said television carries a warranty period of one year, as per condition of the warranty the company will carry out the repairs at free of cost while the product is under warranty period, and in case the warranty is expired  the company will repair the product on chargeable basis paid by the consumer. In this particular case the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 for the first time after using the said product for a period of three years and reported some problems in the television which shows that the said product has no manufacturing defect. To resolve the said issue the technicians of the opposite party no.2 attended for repair for the said television and repaired it as per the warranty entitlement, but the complainant was adamant on the replacement of the said television which was denied by the opposite party no.2 as per the terms and conditions of the warranty clause. Hence the opposite party no.2 has not violated any terms of their warranty policy. It is submitted that the customer’s satisfaction is the main motive of them. Hence there is no deficiency of service of their part, the complainant has filed the present complaint with all false and frivolous grounds before this Forum to extract compensation without any deficiency of service on part of the opposite party no.2. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

           5.The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit and Ex.A1 to A6 were marked and on behalf of the opposite party no.1oneV.Venugopal, Deputy Manager filed  his evidence on affidavit and opposite party no.2. Sandeep Singh, S/o. Sri.Devendra Singh, authorized representative of a Panasonic India Private Limited filed his evidence on affidavit and no documents were marked on behalf of them.   Both parties their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

         6.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i)  Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties                          

                    towards the complainant?    

              (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?            

              (iii)   To what result?

          7. Point No:-(i):-  There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the television from the opposite party no.1 by the complainant for Rs.68,900/- on 05.08.2012 with a warranty period of one year because same was admitted by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The main contention of the complainant is that after using the above said television for some period the television gave some troubles. Hence she approached the opposite party no.1 to repair the said television, but the opposite party no.1 has not taken any steps to repair the same. At last she approached the service centre on 09.05.2015of Panasonic Company to repair the said television. The service personnel attended for repair and stated that the board has to be replaced which will cost of Rs.6,047/- which was accepted by the complainant to pay the same. But subsequently they have stated that the said spare parts were not available with them. Hence they are not able to repair the same because, the make of the said television is three years old. At last she caused the legal notice on 20.10.2015 calling upon the opposite parties for the repair of the said television. After receipt of the said notice the opposite party no.1 kept silent and the opposite party no.2 gave reply i.e.Ex.A5 that they are unable to repair the product because the specific spare parts were not available with them and they made two options to the complainant as

          Option 1: New product will be delivered and difference to be paid

                            by the customer after deducting 70% of invoice value

                           as depreciation.

 

          Option 2: refund to customer after deducting 70% depreciation

                           on the invoice value of Rs. 68900/-.

           8. The opposite party no.1 also stated that they are only the dealers of the several electronic goods of several companies and further contended that the complainant never approached them for service of the television and also contended that if at all any manufacturing defect of the said , she might have approach them within warranty period. But after lapse of three years she made a complaint with all false and frivolous allegations against them. If at all any defect she has to approach the service centre of the particular company or manufacturer i.e. opposite party no.2 not with the opposite party no.1 who are the dealers of the said television. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them.

           9.  The opposite party no.2 further contended that after receipt of the complaint by the complainant the opposite party no.2 made two options those were rejected by the complainant throwing unnecessarily blame on them  in order to extract the compensation from them. Even though there is no deficiency of service on part of them. Once the goods were sold to the customer it is the duty of the manufacturer as well as the dealer to provide service to their goods. But in this particular case neither opposite party no.1 the dealer nor opposite party no.2 manufacturer has not taken any steps to repair the television which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of them.  The opposite parties failed to place any documentary proof to prove that they informed the complainant about the availability of the spare part for effecting the repairs of the  television and Ex.A.5in the reply notice dated 20.10.2015 given by the op.no.2 it clearly mentioned that “we are currently unable to repair your product as the part required for the repair are taking longer than expected to be procured, this confirmation is based on the current situation and does not confirm our stand in future”  and made two offers

          Option 1: New product will be delivered and difference to be paid

                            by the customer after deducting 70% of invoice value

                           as depreciation.

 

          Option 2: refund to customer after deducting 70% depreciation

                           on the invoice value of Rs. 68900/-

 

 

         10. Initially the complainant sent the mail under Ex.A.5to the op.no.2 on 09.05.2015 complaining the problems in the television and after 5 months of their correspondence they finally made two offers which are not at all acceptable because their duty to resolve the problem, instead of that the company offered to purchase the new set with 70% depreciation on  the old television which is nothing but unfair trade practice in order to squeeze money from the customers. It is the responsibility of the traders to resolve the issues of their customers but instead of that the opposite party no. 1 simply thrown the blame on the opposite party no.2 is not acceptable. Hence we are of the opinion that there is clear deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties.

          11. Point(ii):-   In view of our finding on point no.1 the opposite parties no.1 &2 jointly and severally effect the repairs of the television and deliver the same in perfect condition and the complainant has to bear the repair charges because the warranty period was already expired and also the complainant is entitled for Rs.15,000 towards compensation for deficiency of service because of the inaction of the opposite parties she has suffered mental agony nearly one and half year without television which is the primary source of entertainment and also the mode of communication to know the current affairs of the world. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.2,000/- for litigation expenses. Accordingly this point is answered.           

         12.Point (iii):-    In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to effect the repairs of the television and deliver the same to the complainant in perfect condition and repair charges will borne by the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency of service and to pay a sum a Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation expenses. The opposite parties are further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.

           Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 29^th day of July, 2016.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/s

 

PW-1: Smt P.Samyuktha (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

RW-1: V.Venu Gopal (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2: Sandeep Singh (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Purchase bill (original) issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Dt: 05.08.2012.
2.	Photo copy of Service Centre E-Mail Receipts (3). Dt: 09.05.2015, 16.05.2015, 31.08.2015.
3.	Office copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the Opposite parties with two postal receipts. Dt:07.10.2015.
4.	Postal Acknowledgement.
5.	Original copy of Reply sent by the 2nd opposite party. Dt: 20.10.2015.
6.	Warranty Card.Dt: 05.08.2012.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

NIL

                                                                                               Sd/-                                    

                                                                                              President

 

                                                              // TRUE COPY //

                                                               // BY ORDER //

 

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

 

Copies to: 1)The Complainant,

                 2)The opposite parties.