View 576 Cases Against Panasonic
Baikuntha Bihari Sahoo filed a consumer case on 18 Jun 2019 against The Panasonic India Pvt Ltd in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/86/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Jun 2019.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.
C.C No.86 of 2018
Baikuntha Bihari Sahoo,
At/PO:Mahajanpur,
P.S:Jagatpur,Dist:Cuttack.
At present Res.C/o: Rasmi Ranjan Panda,
At:Purbakachha,PO:Madhyakachha,
P.S:Jagatpur,Dist:Cuttack. … Complainant.
Vrs.
Bhubaneswar,Plot No.371,1st Floor,
Near Saheed Sporting Club,
Bhubaneswar,Khurda.
Cuttack Branch,
Royal Tower,Madhupatna,.
Cuttack.
Hati Pokhari Chhak,Cuttack.
Panasonic Authorized Service Centre,
Plot No.1561,Mahanadi Vihar,
Nayabazar,Cuttack-7530004. … Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.
Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member(W).
Date of filing: 07.08.2018
Date of Order: 18.06.2019
For the complainant : Mr. S.Swain, Adv. & Associates.
For the O.P.No.1,2,3 & 4: None.
Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.
The complainant has filed this complaint alleging therein deficiency in service and seeking appropriate relief against the O.Ps in terms of his prayer in the complaint petition.
Subsequently on the advice of O.P No.1, the complainant lodged a fresh complaint at the concerned Customer Care centre over phone and on 19.121.17 an expert went to the house of the complainant to repair the defective T.V but he was unable to do so.Again on the advice of O.P No.1 the defective T.V set was handed over to O.P No.4 on 19.12.17 for the same purpose.Job sheet was also issued by the O.P.4 to the complainant.Annedxure-3 & 4 are respectively the money receipt and the job card issued by O.P.4.After repeated approaches made by the complainant, the O.P.4 denied to provide service to the complainant for the reason that the warranty period was already over.It is specifically stated that afterpurchase of the said T.V set, it has been with the O.Ps all along for the purpose of repair.At that time the T.V set was well within the period of warranty.Delay in repair is the sole cause for expiry of the warranty period and for that reason the O.Ps are liable.
Having no other alternative, the complainant sent lawyer’s notice on 27.4.2018 to the O.Ps demanding immediate action.Annexure-5 is the copy of the said lawyer’s notice but there was no response from them.
It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant was put to harassment and mental agony because of the lack of cooperation from the O.Ps and to that extent they are found rendering deficient service to him.The O.Ps according to the complainant are jointly and severally liable for the loss caused to him.
The complainant has therefore prayed that the O.Ps be directed to refund Rs.21,200/- towards cost of the defective T.V together with interest as well as Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony caused to him, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, Rs.1000/- towards cost of transportation of thedefective T.V and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation to him in the interest of justice.
ORDER
The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps 1,3 & 4 and dismissed exparte against O.P No.2. O.Ps 1,3 & 4 are jointly and severally liable and directed to refund Rs.21,200/- towards cost of the defective T.V set, Rs.1000/- towards transpaortation of the said T.V,Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 18th day of June,2019 under the seal and signature of this Forum.
( Sri D.C.Barik )
President.
(Smt. Sarmistha Nath)
Member(W)
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.