Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/746/2014

Amin H Saith. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director. Panasonic India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Sakri.

11 May 2015

ORDER

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to replace the TV set or otherwise to refund entire cost of the TV with interest along with Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant had purchased Plasma TV set under invoice no.1010543 on 11.11.2010 from the respondent.3 covering the warranty for a period of 3 years from the date of purchase for Rs.38,000/- on exchange of old TV set. Within a short period of usage of the same starts troubleshooting. Hence complainant approached R3 &requested to replace the same. In turn contacted the respondent.1 and 2. After contact of R1 and R2 on 15.07.2013 replaced “A” board set. Again on 2^nd call on 07.10.2013 colour connector refixed. Again on 3^rd call on 03.06.2014 the respondents cancelled the offer made to rectify the defects on the ground due to estimation not approved. Due to non set right of the defect the complainant was deprived of using the same and he subjected to mental agony and the act of the respondents amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     Despite the service of notice the R3 remained absent. Hence, placed exparte. While respondent.1 and 2 appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents taken contention that the very complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the complaint. While the respondents admits the purchase of the TV set from the respondent.3. Also admits the replacement of the mother board free of cost within the warranty period. While the respondents also admit the refusal to replace and set right the defects for the 3^rd time as it was out of warranty period and advised the complainant to pay cost of the repairs. Since the complainant was adamant and reluctant to bear the cost the respondents could not able to replace the part and set right the defects. Hence, on the part of respondents there is no deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

5.     Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit and relied on documents. The complainant apart from argument relied on citations.   Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively
2. Affirmatively
3.  As per order

 

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

6.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the complainant has purchased the TV set from the respondent.3 and thereafter respondent.3 attended and replaced the motherboard and other parts within the warranty period.

7.     Now the question to be determined is, whether non attending of the TV set after warranty period amounts to deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

8.     The very contention of the respondent is that, unless there is specific extension of warranty there will not be a warranty for the replaced parts of the unit. While the respondents admit the warranty and also admits they have undertaken repair works free of charges during the coverage of warranty period and further contended the complainant reluctant to bear the cost of repairs during beyond warranty period the respondents could not able to set right and attend the defects. The learned counsel for complainant while arguing on behalf of complainant submits, when the goods have been purchased and if the defects have been arose during the warranty period certainly the trader or seller bound to replace the defective parts or otherwise entire system in terms of warranty terms and conditions. Accordingly the respondents attended and replaced and set right the TV set on 15.07.2013 and 07.10.2013 of the TV set which was purchased on 11.11.2010. Hence, when the defects have been repeated in the replaced parts which will covers extended warranty so, the respondents are bound to repair the same and they cannot deny or refuse to repair the same free of cost. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied on 2006 (3) SCC 721 Indochem Electronics & Anr. Vs. Additional Collector of Customs A.P. But in the instant case both have not produced any material with respect to the replaced articles have extended warranty. For this the learned counsel for complainant argued, since the respondents have replaced the parts for 2 times it is admittedly understood that there is extended warranty for replaced parts also as such the respondents are bound to set right the same free of cost and non attending amounts to a deficiency in service. Apart from the submission of learned counsel for complainant the respondent also admits they have attended and replaced the parts 2 times before the warranty period and after the warranty period. So we are of considered opinion that the respondents are bound to set right the same free of cost as per the admission by the respondents. As contended if there was no extended warranty the respondents would have not attended and set right the defect free of cost either on 15/7/2015 or on 7/10/2013.

9.     The complainant at the same time blows hot and cold. On one stretch complainant submits since the defects have been recurring the complainant with no other option opt and purchased new TV set, so he required to be refunded the cost of the TV set. While in the prayer the complainant sought for alternative relief. Considering this fact and also of the fact the complainant has made utilization of the TV set for a longer period it is not proper to refund the cost of the TV set at this stage. Instead if it is ordered and direct the respondent to set right the defects free of cost will suffice the purpose. Accordingly the complainant has established his case of deficiency in service by the respondents as such the complainant is entitled for the relief.

10.   In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 affirmatively.

11.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following; 

Order

Complaint is partly allowed. Respondents.1 to 3 jointly and severally are directed to set right the TV set within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order free of charges and to return under proper acknowledgement along with to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from thereon till realization.                       

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 11^th day of May 2015)

Member                    Member                        President.

gm*