Haryana

Karnal

CC/295/2018

Inderjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Panasonic India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Bali

03 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 295 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt.30.10.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 03.12.2019

 

Inderjeet Singh son of Paramjeet Singh resident of 2253 Sector-13, Karnal being special power of Attorney Holder Shri Manmeet Singh.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. The Managing Director Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Delhi & Haryana Branch 11^th Floor, Ambience Tower Ambience Island NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002

IInd Address:

Manager, Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, SCO 170, opp. Hotel Deventure, near Canara Bank, Namastey Chowk, Sector-16, Karnal-132001.

2. Vision Communication, 319-R, Model Town, Karnal through its partner.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present Shri Vikrant Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                Ms. Ritika Seth Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                Opposite party no.2 exparte.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the petitioner Manmeet Singh had purchased, vide invoice no.1377 dated 31.10.2016 a TH-L55WT50D 55” r-D-LED for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from OP no.2. After installation it was found that the product was a faulty product, it had been manufacturing defect in it, moreover the product was 3D Smart LED Model which was purchased from OP no.2 and the same had developed major fault within a week of purchase. After the visit of service team of OP no.1 it was told that the LED had a major problem and new LED would be given to the petitioner. The LED was not given to petitioner as it was not in stock and then the customer services team of OP no.1 promised that the amount of product would be refunded but the amount has not been refunded to the petitioner till date. The company has offered alternate product to petitioner, vide letter dated 16.12.2016 was not the same which was purchased by the petitioner and the product had no 3D smart model/features which were the prime requirements due to which (3D features) the earlier product was purchased on payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. Petitioner has been repeatedly requested for refund but the officials of the OPs failed to refund the amount. Then complainant sent a legal notice to OPs in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version stating therein that there is no petitioner mentioned in the title of the present complaint, moreover, the complainant Inderjeet Singh has also failed to show any Power of Attorney in his favour authorizing him to file the present complaint on behalf of the Actual Purchaser. Hence, complainant is not a consumer as defined in the section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said objection is to be taken as common objection to all paras of the complaint wherein the word “Petitioner” has been used. It is admitted fact that there was an issue in the T.V. in question, however the OP no.1 through its service team tried their level best to sought out the same by providing solution to the Actual Purchaser in the form of replacement or by offering product of higher value in the same category after adjusting the difference amount of New Product price and existing product price, which is also evident from their letter dated 15.11.2016 sent to the Actual Purchaser but since the actual purchaser was only interested in refund, he discretionally did not opted for any of the abovesaid solution. It is denied that official of OP no.1 promised t hat the amount of product would be refunded to petitioner/actual purchaser. It is admitted that the company has offered alternate product to petitioner but not vide letter dated 16.12.2016 but through letter dated 15.11.2016. It is further denied that alternate product had no 3D Smart model/features which were the prime requirements due to which the earlier product was purchased on payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. Rather, customer service offered a product of a higher value in the same category having model no.TH-55DX650D. Moreover, higher value and same category itself indicates that the offered model being of higher value and of same category to that of T.V. in question shall have similar features to that of T.V. in question. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3              OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the very knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it is pleaded that Manmeet Singh ZC-627, Ground floor, CHD City, Sector 45, Karnal has purchased TH-L55WT50D (one piece) for Rs.1,50,000/- on 31.10.2016, vide invoice no.1377 from OP no.2. It is further pleaded that job of installation of the product which has been sold by OP no.2 is of authorized persons of OP no.1 i.e. company, in the present matter the fault erupted in the product and the customer started following the OP no.2, who was intimated that he has to take up the issue with the company as per the same had manufacturing defect. In this regard he had given repeated intimation to the OP no.2, who forwarded the same requests to the authorized persons of Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. finally he had made complaint on R121216046432 on 12.12.2016 with regard to which letter was issued by Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. It is further pleaded that the official of the company admitted before OP no.2 that the product is fault and they are not having similar product and the amount would be refunded. The OP no.2 has also forwarded e-mail to official of Panasonic intimating them that the premium customer is having problem for the last 10 months but no remedy was given to him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 14.06.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anshuman Kashyap Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and closed the evidence on 24.10.2019.

6              OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mandeep Singh Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence on 7.11.2019.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Admittedly, Manmeet Singh on 31.10.2016 purchased the TV from OP no.2 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. As per the complainant, after installation it was found that the product was a faulty one, it had manufacturing defect. In this regard complainant complained the OPs so many times. OP no.2 in his written version and evidence has specifically mentioned that the company official (OP no.1) admitted that the product is faulty. The complaints moved by the purchaser forwarded by OP no.2 to the company i.e. OP no.1. The version of the OP no.1 is that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On the other hand, the version of the complainant is that he is a holder of power of attorney of the actual purchaser and he is competent to file the present complaint. Learned counsel of the complainant relied upon the authority of own Hon’ble State Commission case titled Anup Bhushan Vohra Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority 2008(1) CLT 133 in which Hon’ble State Commission held that Maintainability-complaint by G.P.A. holder-On the basis of General Power of Attorney executed by the complainant G.P.A. holder can be construed as an agent of the complainant having the authority to file the complaint-District Forum unjustified in dismissing the complaint by coming to the conclusion that the complaint has not been filed under valid authority and by a proper person.

9.             Keeping in view of the ratio of the judgment the complainant is competent to file the complaint.

10.            It is admitted by OP no.2 that product is faulty one and same has also been admitted by employee of OP no.1. Thus, in view of the admission of the OPs no.1 and 2, we are of the considered view that unit has manufacturing defect. Thus, act of the OP no.1 amounts to deficiency in service.

11.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to replace LED the in question of the complainant with new one of the same value, same make and model which was purchased by the complainant. However, it is hereby made clear that if the LED of the same make and model is not available with the OP no.1, then the OP no.1 will return the cost of the LED in question i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:03.12.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                                                                                                       

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member