Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/74/2014

Shri.N.V.Prakash S/o N.B.Veerappaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic India Pvt Ltd., registered Office, - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.B.M.Anil Kumar.

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

   COMPLAINT FILED ON :11/09/2014

              DISPOSED ON: 23/07/2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 74/2014 DATED:23rd JULY 2015

 

PRESENT :-     SRI.V.H.RAMACHANDRA PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.H.RAMASWAMY                MEMBER

                                B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

                        SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI           

                                B.A., LL.B.,                       MEMBER

 

 

COMPLAINANT

N.V. Prakash, S/o N.B. Veerappaiah, R/o No.2308, Upstairs, 8th Main, MCC A Block, Davanagere.   Sri. (Rep by Sri.B.M. Arun Kumar,  Advocate)

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.,     Registered Office, 6th Floor,     SPIC Building,     Annexe No.88,     Mount Road, Guindy,     Chennai-600 032.   2. M/s Pain International,     Electronic Ltd.,     No. 275, RKR Plaza,     B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   3. M/s Prasad Enterprises,     No. 337/59, Nituvalli Road,     KSRTC Lay Out,     Davanagere-577 002.   4. Sri. K.V. Prasad,     (Service Incharge)     Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.,   I Floor, Kalburgi Plaza,   Beside Amway, T.B. Road,   Deshpande Nagar,   Hubli-580 020.    (OP 1 & 4 In person, OP 2 & 3 ex-parte))

 

SMT.G.E. SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI, MEMBER.

ORDER

 

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite parties (here in called OPs) to direct the OPs to replace the LCD TV purchased by the complainant from OP 2.  If the OPs failed to replace the new TV to the complainant.  OPs have to pay the cost of the LCD TV i.e., sum of Rs.42,000/- with 12% interest p.a and to direct the OPs to pay sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and court cost and to grant such other reliefs.

 

 2.    Brief facts of the complaint is that, on 07.10.2012 the complainant has purchased a New Panasonic LCD 42U30D TV, the invoice No.0192149 from OP 2.  The OP 2 while selling the LCD Television gave warranty for a period of one year, warranting that the television will given best performance and if any defect including manufacturing defect or breakdown of the product during the warranty period, any of the service centre, located at different cities of the country will rectify the said defect or break down free of cost and if the said defect cannot be rectified, the television will be replaced with the new one without any charge to the complainant.

 

3.     It is surprising that the said television started giving trouble from the day one the television was installed at the residence of complainant, many times the complainant called the company's authorized service centers and the OP 2, none of the two paid need to the complaints. 

 

4.     On 10.12.2012 and 08.04.2013 company technician came to complainant house by taking the warranty coupons issued by the company and repaired the television set and finally on 14^th June 2013 and 24^th August 2013 the television stopped functioning.  The complainant took the television to OP 3 Enterprises who is authorized service centre of the Panasonic Company vide complaint No.PI-ASC-1308-104746, the above said service centre under took repair of the television.  But the OP 3 service centre could not repair the defects; the television was not performing as was promised by the OP No. 2. 

 

5.     Again on 28.12.2013, the complainant took the defective television to the above said OP 3 service centre.  Till today the service centre failed to repair or replace the defective television and the television is still at the custody of the above said OP 3.  Neither OP 2 of the television nor OP 4 service centre tried to do the needful and they stopped to reply to the enquiries made by the complainant. 

 

6.     The complainant issued legal notice on 23.03.2014 to the OPs call upon them to repair or replace the said television, the notice has been served to the OPs, after receipt of the said notice, the OPs have gave false reply notice to the complainant, the OP 2 contacted the complainant through telephone and requested the complainant that he make arrangement for repair or replace the said television, but OP 2 failed to do so, once again the complainant issued legal notice to the OPs on 17.07.2014, except OP 4 the said notice has served to the OPs, after receipt of said notice, the OPs neither replied nor replace the said TV.  The TV set is in the custody of OP 3 till today. 

 

7.     The cause of action for filing this complaint has been arose on 07.10.2012 the date of purchase of LCD 42U30D TV and legal notice dated 17.07.2014 the date in which made claim and complaint filed within time. 

 

8.     The OP 2 is the dealer with OP 1 and OP 2 is sold the said TV to the complainant and carried business within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum.  OP 3 Prasad Enterprises and OP 4 are service in-charge under OP 1.  Hence, the Hon'ble Forum got jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 

 

9.     On service of notice OPs 1 and 4 appeared     in-person and filed version and notice of OPs 2 and 3 duly served  called out absent.  Service held sufficient placed ex-parte,.  OPs 1 and 4 stated that, the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable under law as well as on facts of the case.  OP 1 & 2 have denied the averments made in paras 2 to 6 of the complaint.  It is false to state that on 07.10.2012, the complainant has purchased a New Panasonic LCD TV from the OP 2.  Actually he has purchased the said Television on 10.07.2012.  It is true that the OPs have given the warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase i.e., from 10.07.2012 till 09.07.2013.  It is also true that the OP 2 has given assurance on behalf of OP 1 that if any defect including manufacturing or breakdown of the product during the warranty period, it will be corrected in any of the service centers. 

 

10.   It is utterly false to state that the said Television started to give trouble from the day one of its installation.  It is also false to state that many times the complainant called the Companies authorized service centers and none of the OPs have responded.  It is also false to state that on 28.12.2013, the complainant took the defective Television to OP 3 and till today the service centre failed to repair or replace the defective Television. 

 

11.   The complainant has issued two legal notices to the OPs and it has already been properly replied.  Without prejudice to the above said contentions, the real facts of the case is like hereunder:

i)      OPs have taken contentions that, on 14.06.2013 and 24.08.2013 the complainant has called the service centre of the OPs with a complaint non functioning.  After receiving the said complaints, the problem was resolved by the Service Centre and thereafter the set was functioning properly. 

ii)     Again on 01.01.2014 complainant has called the Service Centre for non functioning of the set and by that time the warranty period has already be expired.  Hence, after due verification of the defect, the Technician has informed the complainant about the estimated cost of the repair which the complainant has to pay.  But the complainant has declined to pay the repairing cost.  Hence it has not been repaired.  Even now this OP is ready to repair the TV provided he should pay the cost of repair as the warranty period has already been expired.

 

12.   OPs 1 & 4 further stated that whatever the dates mentioned in para No.5, has mentioned only to bring this dispute within the warranty period.  Otherwise how the Television stops functioning on two different dates, i.e., on 14.06.2013 and 24^th August 2013?

 

13.   There is no cause of action for the complaint.  As there is no deficiency in service, this OPs are not liable to pay the amounts as mentioned in the prayer column.   Hence, the complaint may kindly be dismissed with compensatory costs.                                   

 

        14. Complainant himself examined as Pw-1 by filing affidavit evidence and filed documents, the same was got marked as Ex A-1 to A-8.

 

        15. On behalf of OP 1 and 4 one Shri. K.V. Prasad S/o Late K.V. Bhat, Branch Service Manager, examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and he has not filed any documents on their side.   

 

        16. Complainant filed written arguments and oral arguments also heard.

 

17.   Now the Points arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that he purchased the Panasonic LCD 42U30D TV vide invoice No.0192149 from OP 2 for sum of Rs.41,000/- on 07.10.2012 and OP 2 gave warranty for a period of one year.  If any defect or breakdown of the product during the warranty period, any of the service centre will rectify the said defect free of cost and if the said defect cannot be rectified, the TV will be replaced with new one?

 

Point No.2:- Whether the complainant proves that the above said TV is suffering from manufacturing defect and stopped functioning two three times within the warranty period and OP 3 failed to repair defects or replace the defective TV and thereby OPs have committed deficiency in service and complainant entitled for the reliefs?

 

Point No.3:- What order?

       

18. Our findings on the above points are as below.

 

        Point No.1:- Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- Affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

 

                                ::REASONS::

 

       19. Point Nos. 1 & 2:-  We like to discuss the point No.1 & 2 simultaneously for the sake of convenience.  It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased the Panasonic LCD 42U30D TV vide invoice No.0192149 from OP 2 for a sum of Rs.41,000/- on 07.10.2012 and OP 2 gave warranty for one year.  It is not in dispute that the  OP 2 gave an assurance to complainant that the television will give best performance and if any defect including manufacturing defect or breakdown of the product during the warranty period, any of the service centre located at different cities of the country will rectify the said defect free of cost and if the said defect cannot be rectified the television will be replaced with the new one without any charge.  It is not in dispute that on 14.06.2013 and 24.08.2013 the television stopped functioning.  Complainant took the television to OP 3 service centre vide complaint No.PI-ASC-1308-104746, OP 3 undertook repair of the television. It is only in dispute that the OP 3 service center could not rectify the defects as promised by the OP 2.  It is only in dispute that again on 28.12.2013, complainant has took the defective television to OP 3 service centre for the complaint the TV is dead (stopped the functioning).  Till today OP 3 failed to repair or replace the defective television.  It is only in dispute that the OP 2 has sold the defective television to the complainant and the said defective television stopped the functioning within the warranty period two three times.  OP 3 has not rectify the defects and committed deficiency in service.  It is only in dispute that the OP 2 sold the manufacture defect television to the complainant and OPs have failed to rectify the defect thereby OPs have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in their service towards complainant. 

 

20.  To prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself examined as PW 1 by filing affidavit evidence in which reiterated the contents of the complaint and filed 8 documents, the same was got marked Ex.A-1 to 8.  Ex.A-1 contained three documents one is warranty card issued by the OP 2.  It shows the one year warranty.  It shows the date of purchase as 07.10.2012, another document issued by the OP 3.  It shows the set received by the OP 3 for repair on 28.12.2013.  Another document shows Panasonic Service Coupon No.3 issued by the OP 2.  Ex.A-2 previous repair history issued by the OP 3,  Ex.A-3 Tax invoice dated 07.10.2012 and dated 13.10.2014 issued by the OP 2.  Tax invoice dated 07.10.2012 shows complainant purchased the Panasonic LCD for a sum of Rs.41,000/- including VAT at 14.5% and the tax invoice dated 13.10.2012 shows complainant purchased V-Guard-STB-Crystal Plus, Airtel Activation kit, Reebok Sporty Sipper for a sum of Rs. 4,340/-.  Copy of the repair history shows the Television was undergone repairs for two times within warranty period.  On perusal of the repair history, it shows the television purchased by the complainant was undergone for repair on 24.08.2013 and 14.06.2013 symptom remarks shows dead.  The defect remarks shows on 24.08.2013 defective electrical component and also shows on 14.06.2013 defective remarks dead.  The copy of the history of repairs is clearly shows that the television sold by the OP 2 was defective one.  Ex.A-2 document issued by the OP 3 on 01.01.2014 shows that television actual complaint was dead and also it shows the previous history on 24.08.2013 the functioning of the TV set was dead.  Ex.A-1 document issued by the OP 3 dated 28.12.2013 shows OP 3 has received the set for repairs.  Ex.A-4 letter written by the complainant to OP 2.  It shows that the complainant requested the OP 2 stating that the product is a manufacturing defect as it is undergoing repairs for 4-5 times in the year for same complaint i.e., it was dead and requesting to replace the same.  Ex.A-5 legal notice dated 17.07.2014 shows that the complainant demanding or requesting the OPs to repair or replace the defective television.  Ex.A-6 RPAD postal receipts, Ex.A-7 postal acknowledgements.  It shows notice issued by the complainant through his Advocate is duly served to OPs 1 to 3, Ex.A-8 un-served RPAD cover addressed to OP 4.  On perusal of the above said documents, it is clearly shows that the OP 2 has sold the defective television to the complainant.  The document copy of the previous history shows that the symptom remarks dead and also the defect remarks shows defective electrical component and the repair date shows 24.08.2013 and 14.06.2013 respectively and Ex.A-2 document issued by the OP 3 also shows the actual complaint is dead.  It is clearly shows that the television purchased by the complainant from OP 2 is defective one. 

 

21.  To prove the case OP 4 appeared in person and representing OP 1 and filed their version.  While admitting the purchase of television by the complainant from OP 2 and also admitting in his version para-7(1) non functioning of the TV set on 14.06.2013 & 24.08.2013.  After receiving the said complaints the problem was resolved by the service centre.  OPs 1 and 4 admits that within warranty period two times, the set was not properly functioning and also admits in para-7(2), again on 01.01.2014 the same complaint received by the OP 3 for non functioning of the set.  OPs 1 and 4 taken contention that on 01.01.2014 the complainant called the service centre for non functioning of the set and by that the warranty period has already be expired.  After due verification of the defect the technician has informed the complainant about the estimated cost of the repair which the complainant has to pay.  OPs 1 and 4 admits in their version that the television not been repaired and the set was in the custody of OP 3 service centre.  OPs 1 and 4 stated that even now they are ready to repair the TV provided.  Complainant should pay the cost of repair as the warranty period has already been expired.  To prove his case OP 4 examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence.  In his affidavit he deposed that facts stated in my version at para 1 to 8 are all true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and in his side OPs 1 and 4 have not filed any documents to show that the television was not suffering from manufacturing defect and also OPs 1 and 4 have not denied the document issued by the OP 3 for previous history of repairs and the set received by the OP 3 on 28.12.2013 for repairs and OPs have not denied the set is in the custody of OP 3 service centre.  The previous repair history shows that the product sold by the OP 2 is defective one.  Therefore, OPs 1 to 4 have not escaped from their liability.  Therefore, OPs are liable to replace the product sold by the OP 2 to the complainant. 

 

22.  On perusal of the entire case records and documents and affidavit evidence it is clearly shows that the OP 2 sold the defective television to the complainant on 07.10.2012 by receiving Rs.41,000/-.  The said television not properly functioning and the said TV within warranty period dead twice for the same remarks.  Therefore, OPs are not escaped from their liability and OPs are liable to repair or replace the product sold by them.  OPs themselves admits that in the version set does not repair, it is clearly shows that the OPs have committed unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in their service.  Accordingly, we answer the Point Nos.1 & 2 held as affirmative.       

 

 23.  Point No.3:- As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following.

 

ORDER

 

        The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

 

OPs 1 to 4 are directed to replace the old T.V with new television Panasonic LCD of same model to the complainant, if fails to replace the LCD, OPs are liable to pay the cost of television i.e., sum of Rs.41,000/- with 9% interest p.a from the date of filing this complaint i.e., 11.09.2014 till payment within two months from the date of this order.

 

The OPs 1 to 4 are directed to pay sum of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this complaint to the complainant. 

    

        Accordingly, complaint is partly allowed. 

 

        (This order is made with the consent of President and Member after the correction of the draft on 23/07/2015 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

MEMBER                 MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

 

ANNEXURES:

Complainant by filing  affidavit evidence taken as PW-1.

Witness examined on behalf of complainant:

                                                -Nil-

On behalf of OPs 1 and 4 one Shri. K.V. Prasad Branch Service Manager, examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit

evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Warranty card, Set received receipt, Service Coupon.
02	Ex-A-2:-	Previous repair history
03	Ex-A-3:-	Tax invoice dated 07.10.2012 and dated 13.10.2014. Copy of the repair history
04	Ex-A-4:-	Letter written by the complainant to  OP 2
05	Ex-A-5:-	Legal notice dated 17.07.2014
06	Ex-A-6:-	RPAD postal receipts
07	Ex-A-7:-	Postal acknowledgements
08	Ex-A-8:-	Un-served RPAD cover

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

 

-Nil-

 

MEMBER               MEMBER           PRESIDENT

 

Rhr***