Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I):
Complainant Pradeep Chandran residing at Lakshmi Vilasom, Ponkunnam, Kottayam District filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the compliant is as follows: On 28.08.2012 complainant purchased a Plasma Panasonic Television from the 2nd opposite party by paying Rs.49,001/- as it cost. 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the said T.V set. At the time of purchase 2nd opposite party promised that the T.V set having 3 year warranty from the date of purchase and issued a certificate of warranty to the complainant. While so, the above mentioned television has become defective and complainant complained before the 2nd opposite party. Service personnel of the 2nd opposite party inspected the product and identified that the defect is with the panel of the television. But the 2nd opposite party told that the 1st opposite party has stopped the production of the product and parts, therefore they have no option to service the product or to replace.
3. Thereafter complainant lodged a complaint by online before the 1st opposite party on 02.01.2015. But there is no response from the 1st opposite party. Finally, complainant send legal notices to the opposite parties. Even though these opposite parties received the notice, but they not turned up. Defect of the television set occurred within the warranty period. Opposite parties violated the terms and conditions of the warranty. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting an order directing the opposite parties to replace the above mentioned television set along with compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant.
4. In this case, 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version. 2nd opposite party set exparte.
5. 1st opposite party filed version with the following contentions: 1st opposite party admit that complainant purchased Plasma Television Model THP42XT5OD on 28.08.2012 manufactured by them, from the 2nd opposite party. According to the 1st opposite party, complainant have used the television for a period of two and a half year with complete satisfaction till January 2015. 1st opposite party also admit that the product carries a warranty for 3 year. It is also mentioned in the warranty clause that company carry out repairs free of cost while the product is under warranty and in case the warranty expired or clause violated company will repair the product on chargeable basis paid by the consumer.
6. When the complainant reported the matter, technicians of the 1st opposite party inspected the product and found that the panel was broken and informed the complainant to repaired on chargeable basis but the complainant denied the same. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service from the 1st opposite party. With the above contentions, and citing the judgment reported in City Municipal Corporation Vs. S.A. Latheef Co. (AIR 2004 Kant 491) prays for dismissing the complaint against them as they had not committed any deficiency in service.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only Point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
8. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 series. After the closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
9. The Point:- The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a television set from the 1st opposite party, which is manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. Product contains 3 years of warranty. But the warranty period itself it became defective and the opposite parties not taken any earnest steps to redressing his grievances.
10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3 series. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of invoice of Rs.49,001/- issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the certificate of warranty issued by the 1st and 2nd opposite party. Ext.A3 series are the copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties and its acknowledgment card and postal receipt.
11. On the other hand, 2nd opposite party’s contention is that even though warranty exists, damage happened to the T.V set is its panel, which is broken. So repairement is possible only on chargeable basis which is denied by the complainant.
12. In order to prove the contention of the 1st opposite party, service engineer of the 1st opposite party was examined as DW1. No document produced on the side of these opposite party.
13. On going through the evidence of this complaint, it is evident that both parties admit the sale of the television and defect occurred in the warranty period. The dispute is only with regard to the repairing of the T.V set. Regarding the warranty the conclusive evidence before the Forum is Ext.A2 warranty card which was issued by 1st opposite party and sealed and signed by the seller 2nd opposite party. In the warranty card, it is clearly mentioned that, “This card entitles you to enjoy 3 year warranty on your product”. Moreover, in the warranty terms and conditions Clause (3) it is clearly printed that “warranty takes care of any manufacturing defect or breakdown of the product during warranty period and the company at its sole discretion will repair or replace such parts”. Therefore, opposite party cannot exonerated or escaped from their liability. We are of the view that opposite parties are deficient in the matter of rendering the service under the warranty they are bound to render. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to the complainant. Hence this complaint is allowable.
14. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite parties are directed to repair the television set free of cost to the complainant, with extended warranty of 6 months or to replace the television set with a new one having the same specifications along with cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the price of the television set of Rs.49,001/- (Rupees Forty Nine Thousand and one only) along with cost and compensation ordered herein above with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2016.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member – I)
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Pradeep Chandran
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of invoice of Rs.49,001/- issued by the 2nd opposite party
to the complainant.
A2 : Certificate of warranty issued by the 1st and 2nd opposite party.
A3 series : Copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel
to the opposite parties and its acknowledgment card and postal
receipt.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Jayaprakash. K.R
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Pradeep Chandran, Lekshmi Vilasom, Thampalakadu. P.O.,
Ponkunnam, Kanjirappally, Kottayam.
(2) The Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director, Panasonic India
Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor SPICE HOUSE Annex,
No.88, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 032,
(3) The Proprietor, Melamparampil Agencies,
Melamparampil Chambers, Podiyadi. P.O.,
Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
