Orissa

Cuttak

CC/86/2018

Baikuntha Bihari Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S Swain

18 Jun 2019

ORDER

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.

 

  1.        The Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.,

Bhubaneswar,Plot No.371,1st Floor,

Near Saheed Sporting Club,

Bhubaneswar,Khurda.

 

  1.        The Raj Electronics,

Cuttack Branch,

Royal Tower,Madhupatna,.

Cuttack.

 

  1.        The Cool & Cool,Dargha Bazar,

Hati Pokhari Chhak,Cuttack.

 

  1.        The Swapna Enterprises,

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.

  1. Case of the complainant stated in brief is that on 20.3.2015 the complainant purchased one Panasonic LED 32A300DX TV set from O.P. No.2 with two years of warranty coverage.  Annexure-1 is the copy of the said warranty filed in this case.  In the month of oMarch,2016, the said T.V set went out of order.   Neither the picture was seen in the TV nor was sound coming from it.  It was kept in dead condition.  The complainant intimated this fact to O.P No.1, the manufacturing company and accordingly a technician was sent to repair the T.V set but he failed to repair it assigning any reason.  On subsequent occasion, as per the advice of the O.P.1 the complainant took the said TV set to O.P No.3, the authorized service centre for repair.  It was repaired pand running trouble free for about 15 days.  Again the same problem was repeated.  On the complaint made by the complainant on 8.9.16 the defective TV set was again taken to the O.P No.3 for repair.  Annexure-2 is the copy of the receipt dt.8.9.16 issued by O.P No.3 in token of receipt of the said defective T.V set.  But on 19.12.2017 O.P No.3 returned it to the complainant without  repair.

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.

  1. The O.Ps 1,2,3 & 4 have been set exparte.
  2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the case record.
  3. The uncontroverted statement made on oath by the complainant supported by annexures stated above goes to show that there was deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps 1,3 & 4 in repairing the defective T.V set of the complainant.  O.P No.2 being the dealer of the product is not liable.  Hence ordered;

                                                                                                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 Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.