CC No.1922/2015

Filed on 02.12.2015

Disposed on 01.02.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1922/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

PRESENT:

     Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

              PRESIDENT

                      Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                                 MEMBER

                                          V/S

ORDER

BY SMT. L.MAMATHA, MEMBER

1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Party to replace the TH-P42UT50D42” 3D FULL HD PLASMA TV” WITH BRAND NEW ONE OR TO PAY THE VALUE OF THE T.V OF Rs.59,999/- along with interest further directing the Opposite Party to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards damages for deficiency of service and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards cost and grant such other reliefs to the Complainant. 
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant has submitted that he purchased television from Opposite Party No.1 for his domestic use.  The product name is “PANASONIC SMART PLASMA TV” (TH-P42UT50D 42” 3d FULL HD Plasma TV) and Opposite Party No.2 is the manufacturer of the product “PLASMA TV”.   He purchased on 05.01.2013 and he has paid a sum of Rs.54,401/-along with 14.50% of Vat on the said amount, totally Rs.59,999/- as the value of the product. The Complainant submits that the Opposite Party have issued certificate of warranty, by assuring that the Complainant has entitles to enjoy three years warranty on the product and also given three service coupons.  The said TV was installed in first week of January 2013.  From the date of installation it was a trouble to Complainant and they were unable to enjoy it.  In the third week of February 2013, it broke down and same was informed to the customer care of the Opposite Party.  They have deputed one service man and he came and he found problem in the mother board and he replaced the mother board on 21.02.2013 itself.  The Complainant submits that he faced the problem within one and half month of its purchase.  The said plasma TV again had a problem in the first week of August 2015 and a complaint was lodged with the Customer support on the toll free number (Reference No:C100815063176).  On 4^th August 2015, the Opposite Party has deputed one Engineer & he visited Complainants house, investigated the issue and he found out the problem in mother board and he gave a job sheet highlighting that the issue (the problem of mother board) is still pending and he suggested to replace the mother board (Job No.RO40815151349).  The Opposite Party have taken 9 days’ time to replace the mother board.  On 13.08.2015 one Mr.Raghavendra, Service Engineer has replaced the mother board.  The Opposite Party has confirmed the same on mail dt.14.08.2015 and they have admitted that the TV is working, however, due to non-availability of the cable connection, the Service Engineer could not to check the performance of the TV and tested only with a USB which he personally brought with himself.  It is submitted by the Complainant that on the replacement of mother board itself the problem is not resolved.  From 15.08.2015 the Complainant is observing the performance of the TV, again it is found that the same is not working satisfactorily.  When the TV is being switched on, it was not “Powering On” immediately and it used to take it’s own time to switching on.  This period was observed to be taking from 5 minutes to 5 hours.  This issue was conveyed to Mr.Raghavendra on several times and asked him to come and check the issue.  It is submitted that all other electrical equipments were working satisfactorily in the Complainant house, even though Mr.Raghavendra has suggested to get the all electrical connection to be tested, but he has not admitted the problem of the TV.  The issue again reported to Customer Support in J.P.Nagar on 23.08.2015 and they promised to send someone before 11 am on 24.08.2015.  Finally on 29.08.2015 one Senior Engineer Mr.Venkatesh came and checked the TV and finally confirmed that there is problem with the supply unit and the same has to be replaced.  The Complainant confirmed this to the company on 1^st September 2015 to their helpline.  On continuous remainder to the Opposite Party, finally gave reply on 11.09.2015 that the required part is not available.  On 12.09.2015 one Senior Engineer of the Opposite Party came and replaced the required part and he observed that the TV is still not functioning satisfactorily and he confirmed that the said TV will be replaced with a new one and that he will organize to pick up the TV 13.09.2015.  But Opposite Party did not do the same.  Hence, this complaint.

3.   Even though notice was served on the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties fails to put their appearance, hence placed ex-parte. 

4. In support of the complainant, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence. The Complainant had filed written arguments.

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7.     POINT NO.1: On perusing the pleadings along with documents produced by the Complainant, it reveals that the Opposite Party No.1 is a dealer of “PANASONIC India Private Limited Company.  The Opposite Party No.2 is a manufacturer of Panasonic mobiles.  The Complainant states that on 05.01.2013 he purchased the “PLASMA TV” from Opposite Party No.1 and has paid a sum of Rs.54,401/- along with 14.50% of vat on the said amount, totally Rs.59,999/- as the value of the product.  The Complainant on the purchase ofs the said product the Opposite Parties have issued certificate of warranty, by assuring that the Complainant has entitles to enjoy three years warranty on the product and also given three service coupons.  In the said TV was installed in first week of January 2013.  From the date of installation it was a trouble to the Complainant.  In the third week of February 2013, TV broke down and same was informed to the customer care of the Opposite Party.  The servicemen came and he found problem in the mother board and he replaced the mother board on 21.02.2013 itself.  To substantiate this fact, the Complainant filed his affidavit, in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and also in support of his testimony, he produced Invoice, Warranty Card, job Sheet, emails.  By looking into these documents, it clearly shows that the Complainant purchased the “Panasonic Smart Plasma TV (TH-P42UT50D 42” 3d FULL HD Plasma TV) on 05.01.2013.  But the Complainant has faced the problem within one and half month of its purchase.  The said plasma TV again had a problem in the first week of August 2015.  The Complainant was lodged with the Customer support.  On 4^th August 2015, the Opposite Party has deputed one Engineer & he visited Complainants house, investigated the issue and he found out the problem in mother board is still pending and he suggested to replace the mother board.  The Opposite Party have taken 9 days’ time to replace the mother board.  On 13.08.2015 the Service Engineer has replaced the mother board.  The Opposite Party has confirmed the same on mail dt.14.08.2015.  From 15.08.2015 the Complainant observed that the TV is not working satisfactorily.  The issue again reported to Customer Support on 23.08.2015 and they promised to send someone on 24.08.2015.  Finally on 29.08.2015 one Senior Engineer came and checked the TV and finally confirmed that there is problem with the supply unit and the same has to be replaced.  The Complainant confirmed this to the company on 1^st September 2015 to their helpline.  Finally Opposite Party gave reply on 11.09.2015.  On 12.09.2015 one Senior Engineer of the Opposite Party came and replaced the required and he observed that the TV is still not functioning satisfactorily and he confirmed that the said TV will be replaced with a new one and that he will organize to pick up the TV 13.09.2015.  But Opposite Party did not do the same.  After regular follow-up Email conversation, the Opposite Party has agreed to replace the TV.  But the Opposite Party demanded extra charges.  The Complainant is not ready to pay on extra amount but he wants to replace defective TV.  Because warranty period is still in existence.  The Complainant suffered with lot of inconvenience mental agony.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party is doing unfair trade practice.  To disbelieve the version of the Complainant nothing was on record.  In spite of repeated requests the Opposite Party never bothered to fulfill the demand of the Complainant.  Under these circumstances, it clearly shows that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.  Hence, this point is held in affirmative.

8. POINT No.2:- In view of the finding on point No.1, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. 

The Opposite Parties are directed to refund a sum of Rs.59,999/- along with interest at 15% p.a. from 05.01.2013 till realization.

The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.  

The Opposite Parties granted 45 days’ time to comply this order.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 1^st day of February 2017)

        MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Mr.B.Shivaprasad, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Advocate for Complainant:

1. Copy of the Invoice dt.05.01.2013
2. Certificate of Warranty
3. Job Sheet
4. Email correspondences
5. Bank Cheque

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

                                    -NIL-

  List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                          -NIL-

 MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT