Date of Filing : 27.06.2018
Date of Disposal: 25.07.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A., B.L., ....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com. ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.33/2018
THIS MONDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JULY 2022
Mr.R.Elangovan, S/o.Mr.Rajagopalan,
No.1, 2nd Kandasamy Street,
Tandurai, Pattabiram,
Chennai -600 072. Thiruvallur District. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Proprietor, Vasantham & Co,
No.535 S.T.L Complex,
Pattabiram, Chennai -600 072. Thiruvallur District.
2.The Managing Director,
Panasonic India Private Limited,
6th Floor, Spic Building Annexe,
No.88, Mount Road, Guindy,
Chennai -600 032, Tamil Nadu.
3.The Managing Director,
Panasonic India Private Limited,
Having Head Office at,
Panasonic Head Office,
12th Floor Ambience Island,
NH-8, Gurgaon, Hariyana -122002. ..........Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : Mr.S.MuthuKumaravel, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 13.07.2022 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate counsel for the complainant and Mr.S.MuthuKumaravel, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling defective television along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the same with a brand new Panasonic 40 LED television or to pay a sum of Rs.41,000/- towards cost of the television and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardships along with Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The crux of the complaint was that the complainant purchased a Panasonic 40 LED Television, Model No.TH.40C 200DX on 03.02.2015. At the time of purchase he was offered with 2.1 Panasonic Home Theatre by the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.41,000/- on EMI payment basis. All the dues were paid by the complainant. After ten months both the products supplied by the 1st opposite party were not working properly and lines appeared in the screen and pictures were projected with shadow. On oral complaint the 1st opposite party assured to rectify the problem within one week but there was no proper response. The Panasonic 40 LED Television, Model No.TH 40C 200DX had display blinking problem and then became completely unusable within the warranty period of one year and the same was reported to the 1st opposite party and also the 2nd opposite party customer service person and also registered a complaint on 01.11.2016. On approaching several times the 1st opposite party suggested the complainant to hand over the Television to them and assured that they will exchange the same with a new one. Believing the words of the 1st opposite party, complainant had handed over the articles but there was no response. Further, on filing a complaint through The President, Tamil Nadu progressive Consumer Centre, Chennai, the 2nd opposite party by letter dated 14.11.2017 replied that they will consider and replace the complainant’s unit with new model and that the difference amount of Rs.15,150/- was requested to be paid by the complainant. However, as the complainant did not want to spend additional amount requested for 40 LED Television with warranty period of one year and not a new model. Thus aggrieved in not responding by the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service, the present complaint was filed for the following relief as mentioned below;
1. Directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace with a brand new “Panasonic 40” LED television, Model No.TH 40C 200DX or to pay a sum of Rs.41,000/- towards cost of the television.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship, strain, inconvenience by the act of the opposite parties and their deficiency in service.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of this complaint.
Defence of the 1st opposite party:
The 1st opposite party filed a version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter-alia that the complainant had never visited the opposite party office and never made any oral complaint. It is only on 01.11.2016 a complaint was made. It is contended by them that they had never assured to replace exchange of new one. The article was taken custody only when this opposite party has specifically mentioned that it is only for a repair work without any benefits of warranty and the complainant had agreed for the same. The 2nd opposite party had offered to tender a new model TV in order to save the company’s goodwill but the complainant was adamant to accept the same model and for payment of Rs.15,150/- for the new model TV. It is submitted by them that the complaint was clearly barred by limitation and thus contending that there was no deficiency in service on their part they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
Defence of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties:
The 2nd opposite party adopts the version filed by the 3rd opposite party. It is contended that the first complaint was received on 07.12.2016 vide job card no.R071216026496 after the expiry of the warranty period wherein the technician found the panel defective and the same needs to be replaced and that the service centre shared an estimate for panel replacement. Again on 04.03.2017 a second complaint was received wherein the estimate was again shared but the complainant refused for the same. After the complaint was filed before the President, Tamil Nadu Progressive Consumer Centre, as a good will gesture opposite party offered same model for replacement but the complainant refused to accept the same.
Again the opposite party received a notice from TNPCC dated 23.10.2017 wherein the complainant requested for replacement bearing model TH-40ES500D with 2 years warranty instead of same model replacement and for which it is submitted that the opposite party was ready to replace the TV with two years warranty but the complainant was requested to pay the difference amount of Rs.15,150/- for a new model but the complainant refused for the offer. It is submitted that the defect as alleged by the complainant is not a manufacturing defect and no Engineer’s report was filed in proof of the same by the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the obligation of the manufacturer is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part which is proved to be suffering from any manufacturing defect within the limit of the warranty through expert evidence. Further it is submitted by the opposite party that there is no cause of action against them and it is also submitted that there was no territorial jurisdiction for this commission. Thus contending that the complainant was not a consumer and that the complainant had approached this Commission with unclean hands and was guilty of supperio veri and suggestio falsi and hence not entitled to any relief they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked. On the side of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and document Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. On the side of 1st opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents were produced.
Point for consideration:
Whether the complainant is successful in proving the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling a defective Panasonic 40 LED Television, Model No.TH.40C 200DX and failed to replace the same with a new Television and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point:
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
⦁ Cash bill issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dated 03.12.2015 was marked as Ex.A1;
⦁ Complaint lodged by the complainant through phone to Customer Care dated 01.11.2016 was marked as Ex.A2;
⦁ Letter sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 13.04.2017 was marked as Ex.A3;
⦁ Letter sent by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party dated 13.04.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;
⦁ Acknowledgement cards for proof of service was marked as Ex.A5 & Ex.A6;
⦁ Complaint letter issued by the complainant to the President, Tamil Nadu Progressive Consumer Center, Chennai dated 27.05.2017 was marked as Ex.A7;
⦁ Reply letter sent by the 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A8;
⦁ Complaint forward by the President, TPCC to the 2nd opposite party Head Office dated 06.09.2017 was marked as Ex.A9;
⦁ Complaint forward by the President, TPCC to the 2nd opposite party 23.10.2017 was marked as Ex.A10;
⦁ Complaint letter issued by the complainant to the President, TPCC, Chennai dated 19.10.2017 was marked as Ex.A11;
⦁ Reply letter sent by the opposite party to the President, TPCC, Chennai was marked as Ex.A12;
⦁ Rejoinder letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party 18.12.2017 was marked as Ex.A13;
⦁ Final letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party dated 16.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A14;
⦁ Reply letter sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 07.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A15;
⦁ Warranty card was marked as Ex.A16;
On the side of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties following documents were filed in support of their contentions;
⦁ Board Resolution was marked as Ex.B1;
⦁ Reply notice issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 16.10.2017 was marked as Ex.B2;
⦁ Reply notice issued by the 2nd opposite party to the President, TPCC, Chennai was marked as Ex.B3;
⦁ Reply notice issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant was marked as Ex.B4;
Heard the oral arguments adduced by both side counsels appearing for both parties. As it is an admitted fact by both the parties that the Panasonic 40 LED Television, Model No.TH.40C 200DX was purchased by the complainant on 03.12.2015 and suffers with some defects and hence this Commission did not take pains to decide the issue whether the Television purchased by the complainant suffers with any defects. However the issue to be decided by this Commission is to whether the offer for replacement of television by the opposite party was denied by the complainant on some valid reason or not. Both the opposite parties had admitted in their written version that they are ready to replace the defective television though the opposite parties had raised the issue that the complaint was not made within the warranty period and the present complaint was barred by limitation. This contention is liable to be brushed aside as it is evident from the pleadings that vide Ex.A2 dated 01.11.2016 a complaint was lodged through phone to the customer care i.e., 2nd opposite party and a reply was also sent by them stating that the request was registered and also allotted a number and requesting complainant to call Toll Free No.180001081333/1800103133 for further assistance.
Further the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties has come forward in their written version that they were ready to replace the same model to the complainant for which the complainant did not agree. This contention of opposite parties could not be accepted by this Commission for the reason that the complaint itself was filed for replacement of the television with same model as the complainant did not agree to pay the additional amount of Rs.15,150/- for a new model. In such facts and circumstances we can hold that the 2nd and 3rd opposite party is not ready to replace the television with the same model at no extra cost. The contention raised by the 2nd and 3rd opposite party that as no expert report was filed to prove the defect in television and that the service centre suggested for replacement of penal could not be accepted as they themselves admitted that the television supplied to the complainant was with some defects. Thus this commission hold that though it is proved by the complainant that the television purchased by him was with some manufacturing defects, the opposite parties by citing one reason or other had evaded to replace the said defective television with a new television of the same model without any extra cost with warranty and thus have committed deficiency in service. We therefore hold that the complainant was successful in proving that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainant.
With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant there was an offer by the opposite parties for the replacement of the television on the same model but without any guaranty period which offer was not accepted by the complainant. This Commission also feels that the said offer is not proper when we have already held above that the LED television sold to the complainant was with certain defect and that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service. In such circumstances we grant relief to the complainant directing the opposite parties to replace the defective television with a brand new one with warranty period and further we also award compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony caused to the complainant and we also award Rs.5,000/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable
a)to replace the defective Television with a brand new “Panasonic 40” LED Television with applicable warranty period within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order or in alternative to pay a sum of Rs.41,000/- (Rupees forty one thousand only) within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;
d) if prayer in clause (a) not complied within four weeks an interest at the rate of 9% will be applicable on the cost of the product.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 25th day of July 2022.
Sd- Sd- Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 03.12.2015 Televsion purchase bill. Xerox
Ex.A2 01.11.2016 Complaint lodged by the complainant through phone to customer care. Xerox
Ex.A3 13.04.2017 Compaint letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A4 13.04.2017 Complaint letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A5 20.04.2017 Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A6 21.04.2017 Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A7 27.05.2017 Complaint letter issued by the complainant to the President, TPCC, Chennai. Xerox
Ex.A8 ............... Reply letter sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A9 06.09.2017 Complaint forward by the President, TPCC, Chennai to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A10 23.10.2017 Complaint forward by the president,TPCC to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A11 19.10.2017 Complaint letter issued by the complainant to the President, TPCC, Chennai. Xerox
Ex.A12 .............. Reply letter sent by the opposite party to the President, TPCC, Chennai. Xerox
Ex.A13 18.12.2017 Rejoinder letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A14 16.01.2018 Final letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A15 07.02.2018 Reply notice sent by the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A16 .............. Warranty card. Xerox
List of documents filed by the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties;
Ex.B1 ............. Board Resolution copy. Xerox
Ex.B2 16.10.2017 Copy of letter Xerox
Ex.B3 .............. Copy of reply letter. Xerox
Ex.B4 ............... Copy of reply letter. Xerox
Sd- Sd- Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
