BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th NOVEMBER 2015
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 303/2015
(Admitted on 29.08.2015)
Mr. Sadashiva Polnaya
(through Ms Apeksha Polnaya, POA)
Ashwin House Bhagavathi Temple, Road,
Ullal, Mangalore 575 020. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Complainant: In Person)
VERSUS
1. Panasonic Appliances India Company Limited,
No. 88, 6th Floor, SPIC building Annexe
Mount Road, Guindy,
Chennai 600032.
(Through Managing Director)
Phone: 044 61089899
Email:helpline@.panasonic.com.
2. Wega Electronics
(Through the Proprietor)
B1 and B2, Belvue Apartments
Below State Bank of Mysore, Valencia Circle
Mangalore 575 002.
Phone: 0824 4261135. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No. 1 and 2: Ex parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in TV set as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant purchased Panasonic LED TV 42 inches wide invoice No. 174 dated 10.07.2013 by paying sum of Rs. 58,800/. The complainant stated that, the above said unit had manufacturing defect and there was issues with the quality and finally the TV stopped working. Thereafter complainant taken the TV set for repair, but the opposite party returned without repairing it on 17.01.2015 stating that the spare parts are unavailable. It is stated that, the TV set sold by the opposite party party is defective and hence the above complaint filed U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the defective TV set or in the alternative refund the entire amount of Rs. 58,800/- along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till the realization to the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite parties by R.P.A.D. In spite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this Fora, Hence we have proceeded ex-parte as against the opposite parties. The acknowledgment marked as court Document No. 1 and 2.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mr. Sadashiva Polnaya. (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C5. Opposite Parties ex parte.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that the Led TV 42 inches purchased on 10.07.2013 from the opposite parties found to be defective?
- Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the oral arguments submitted by the complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i) and (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii) and (iv). As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) to (iv): The complainant in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed affidavit supported by documents i.e. Ex C 1 to C 5. Wherein the Ex C1 is the Tax invoice dated 10.07.2013 reveals that the complainant paid Rs. 58,800/. The Ex C-2 and 3 are the job card and repair status information. And Ex C-4 notice sent by the complainant. The above documents reveals that admittedly the complainant purchased the above said TV set by paying Rs. 58,800/ and the job card reveals that, the LED TV set is not working and there is no picture.
It is noted that, opposite party in spite of receiving version notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date. The entire evidence placed by the complainant are not contradicted nor controverted, which requires no further proof. The complainant proved that, the LED TV set purchased by him is not working and it is defective. The opposite party not bothered to contest the case it shows their sheer negligence. It is settled possession that, when the product is defective, it is bounded duty of the opposite parties to repair the product herein /TV Set by facilitating the spare parts. But, in the instant case, the opposite parties failed to facilitate the spare parts amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Therefore, we hold that, the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs. 58,800/- by taking back the defective TV set.
Generally, if the LED TV set has manufacturing defect is to be borne by the manufacturer. That would not mean that, the dealer is absolved from joint and several liabilities. As we know, the manufacturer not deals with the customers directly. Dealer having received the amount, undertaken free service and rectify defect during the warranty do not escape liability towards the manufacturing defect found in the LED TV set. As we know, the contract through dealer/service provider, privity of contract is with them. To ensure execution expeditiously and immediately, if necessary by making the payment/replacement to the complainant initially and then it will be for the dealer to claim reimbursement from the manufacturer. Therefore, the dealer and the manufacturer both are jointly and severally liable for the defects found in the LED TV set in this case.
In the above circumstance, the Opposite Parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs. 58,800/ i.e. value of TV set along with interest at 12% per annum to the complainant. Further pay Rs. 3,000/ toward litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally shall refund ₹ 58,800/- along with interest at 12% interest from the date of purchase of TV till the date of payment to the complainant by taking back the defective TV set and also pay Rs. 3,000/ as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30st day of NOVEMBER 2015)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum. D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW-1 : Mr Sadashiva Polnaya Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex. C1 : Copy of the Invoice issued by Opposite party.
Ex. C2 : Copy of the complaint dated 01.09.2014.
Ex. C3 : Copy of Job No PI ASC 1409 004160.
Ex. C4 : Office copy of legal notice dated 20.06.2015.
Ex. C5: Copy of the Power of Attorney (document No s 2)
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 30.11.2015. PRESIDENT
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally shall refund ₹ 58,800/ along with interest at 12% interest from the date of purchase of TV till the date of payment to the complainant by taking back the defective TV set and also pay Rs. 3,000/ as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30st day of SEPTEMBER 2015)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore
