BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 229 of 2019
Date of Institution : 03.05.2019
Date of Decision : 11.12.2019
Sanjay Arora, aged 54 years son of Shri L.K. Arora, resident of House No.99, C-Block, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Vijay Sales K-25/11 Near 3 C. Cinema, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi- 110024 through its Prop. (Phone No. 011-66660222).
2. Panasonic India Private Ltd., 12th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH8 Gurugram- 122002 Haryana (India) through its Regional Manager Shri Naveen Tyagi Mobile No. 08427000429.
3. Service Plaza authorized service center of Panasonic, Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Incharge Shri Satish Kumar Mobile No. 9812085185.
4. Shri Sohan Chugh, authorized dealer Panasonic C/o M/S Punjab Radio Company, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa- 125055 Mobile No. 94163-05455.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……… MEMBER
Present: Sh. Suresh Mehta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
Opposite parties no.1 and 4 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant had purchased one LED 42” of make Panasonic from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.6779 dated 16.1.2014 against cash payment of Rs.50,001/- duly issued with the delivery of the item and same was installed by local dealer/ op no.4 at Sirsa. That said LED stopped working suddenly on 4.2.2018 and op no.3 was requested to rectify the fault and request was also made to op no.4 being local dealer of Panasonic company which was registered as R150318628609. It is further averred that LED was removed by op no.3 on 6.2.2018 and on 8.2.2018 it was apprised by the engineers concerned that panel of LED has become out of order and it could not be available for replacing the same as the company has stopped manufacturing of same model. They further assured that efforts were being made to get the panel of same model and ultimately the care center showed its helplessness to carry out the repairs on account of lapse of warranty period. It is further averred that after making series of rounds, telephonic calls and mails, lastly on 28.11.2018 a demand of Rs.24,780/- was raised by op no.3 for the cost of display panel, labour charges and GST and complainant agreed to pay the same but neither LED was repaired by replacing the display panel nor it was returned to complainant and as such the ops caused unfair trade practice. It is further averred that under the compelling circumstances and consistent delay, the complainant had to purchase a brand new LED (43”) by spending an amount of Rs.35,000/- on 12.5.2018 against invoice No.279 through op no.4. That ops have failed to provide due service in proper manner of the product sold by the company through op no.1. That all the ops being dealer, manufacturer, service providers are/were duty bound to provide basic service under the norms coupled with agreed terms and conditions duly claimed specifically as well as through universal advertisements through various modes for providing service to the consumer at his doorstep. It is further averred that complainant is a journalist by profession and LED/ TV is not only his professional need rather it has become daily routine need in every house. He has been harassed at the hands of ops from the day of first complaint i.e. 4.2.2018 till date as the ops have shown totally an insensitive approach towards grievances of complainant and committed gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.2 and 3 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as complainant has purchased a LED television from op no.1 on 16.1.2014, no consideration whereof was paid to answering ops in any manner. It is the admitted case of complainant that TV worked fine till 4.2.2018, which is for almost four years from the date of purchase, the complainant has used the same up to his complete satisfaction whereas no concern regarding the performance of LED was ever raised by complainant. It is further submitted that TV in question is out of warranty and complainant used the LED at his full satisfaction and never raised any complaint in the first four years of use. It is further submitted that complainant has miserably failed to establish in his complaint that answering ops failed to respond to the complainant or there was any part of deficiency of service or particular kind of defect falling within the purview of manufacturing defect has persisted in the LED as neither any engineer’s (export) report nor any other convincing material has been filed by complainant. It is further submitted that there is no privity of contract between complainant and answering ops. That as per warranty obligation, the liability of manufacturer would be limited to removal of the defect and/or replacement of the parts provided the same is proved through expert evidence. On merits, it is submitted that first complaint was made by complainant on 8.2.2018 and immediately the complaint was assigned to a technician of the service centre. The technician of the answering ops visited the place of complainant and upon inspection of the LED, wrote a remark in the job sheet as “Panel defective and panel in- no picture issue”. The technician then suggested to the complainant that there is a defect in the panel, the same needs to be replaced which would amount to 24780/- as the customer unit was out of warranty. The complainant sent his unit to the service centre and when the service centre shared the repair estimate, complainant refused to pay so. Thus, service centre sent a letter to the customer and requested him to collect the unit from ASC. It is further submitted that complainant is creating a confusion with different job sheets and corresponding dates. The answering op on 2nd complaint of complainant on 15.3.2018, informed the complainant of the repair charges and asked then complainant to collect the defective unit from ASC. The complainant never paid expenses nor the labour charges. That complainant registered third complaint on 17.7.2018 and as this time the part was not available with the answering ops, hence it offered replacement after applying depreciation as per warranty clause no.22 but again complainant refused and answering op sent depreciation letter to complainant. The complainant has never approached the authorized service centre till date and has not collected the defective unit from the authorized service centre. All other contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Opposite parties no.1 and 4 did not appear despite notices and were proceeded against exparte.
4. Then complainant as well as ops no.2 and 3 led their respective evidence. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 28.11.2018 Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 28.11.2018 Ex.C3, copy of invoice Ex.C4 and copies of emails Ex.C5 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops no.2 and 3 have tendered affidavit Sh. Arjun Tanwar, authorized signatory as Ex.DW1/A, copy of extract of the minutes of meeting Ex. Ops 2 & 3/1, copies of job sheet Ex. Ops 2& 3/2 to 4 and copy of letter Ex. Ops 2 & 3/5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has filed written arguments in which it has been submitted that complainant had purchased a LED 42” for an amount of Rs.50,001/- vide bill Ex.C1 on 16.1.2014 from op no.1. On 4.2.2018, suddenly LED stopped working and complaint was lodged with ops. LED was removed by op no.3 on 6.2.2018 and on 8.2.2018 it was apprised by the engineers concerned that panel of the LED has become out of order and it could not be made available for replacing the same as the company has stopped the manufacturing of same model. On 28.11.2018, a demand of Rs.24,780/- was raised by op no.3 in the name of cost of display panel, labour charges and GST. The complainant agreed to pay the same but it is totally unfair on the part of ops that it was not responded as neither the LED was repaired by replacing the display panel nor it was returned to complainant. In this way, ops did not offer any explanation qua deficiency of service pointed out in the manner that engineer of the ops visited same day in the house of complainant to inspect the LED and reported that Panel defective and panel in no picture issue meaning thereby that panel needs to be replaced. The complainant is entitled for compensation and replacement of the LED.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.2 and 3 has also filed written arguments in which it has been submitted that complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant had purchased LED on 16.1.2014 and its working was stopped after period of four years from the date of purchase. LED in question is out of warrantee. The complaint from complainant was received on 8.2.2018 which was attended by authorized service centre of the answering ops and the engineer/ technician of answering ops visited the complainant and inspected LED and reported panel defective and panel in- no picture issue. After receiving another complaint on 15.3.2018, a service request was created by the customer care of answering ops and service request was immediately assigned to and attended by the authorized service centre of answering ops. Their engineer visited the complainant on same day and inspected LED and defect detected by engineer was that panel was defective and repair charges was informed to the customer but he did not pay repair charges nor he got lifted LED from the premises of ops and there is no act of negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of ops no.2 and 3.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the record carefully.
9. It is an admitted fact between the parties that complainant had purchased LED 42” for Rs.50,001/- from opposite party no.1 and used the same for period of about four years. On 8.2.2018 for the first time, LED stopped its working, as a result of which complaint was lodged with the service centre of ops and engineer of ops no.2 and 3 attended the complaint and visited and inspected the LED and it was lifted to their service centre. Thereafter, on checking they detected defect of panel being defective. Since LED was out of warranty, its display panel was not available, as such service centre of ops no.2 and 3 reported to the complainant that same will be got repaired at the cost of customer i.e. for Rs.24,780/-.
10. As per version of ops no.2 and 3, amount of cost of repairing was not deposited by complainant nor he got lifted his LED from the service centre but at the same time as per version of complainant after removing LED from the house of complainant on 6.2.2018, they wrote the letter on 28.11.2018 by which they called upon the complainant to pay Rs.24,780/-, but however, they did not explain about the period of nine months during which they remained mum and did not disclose about the defect in the LED nor they got it repaired nor they handed over same to the complainant.
11. It is proved fact on record that LED was purchased on 16.1.2014 and complaint was lodged for the first time on 4.2.2018 after a period of more than four years and LED was out of warranty. Though it is legal obligation of the ops no.2 and 3 to provide after sale services to the customers like present complainant and to provide spare parts of the product being manufacturer of the product, but however, ops showed their helplessness in getting the product repaired due to non availability of the spare part which was needed to make LED in working condition nor they handed over the LED to the complainant back which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops.
12. In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the LED to make the same defect free and to hand over the same after receiving a sum of Rs.24,780/- from the complainant against proper receipt and verification within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:11.12.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
