w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



J. Mohan Reddy v/s Panasonic AVC Networks India C. Ltd. & Others

    F.A. No. 765 of 2010 against C.C. No. 620 of 2009, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad

    Decided On, 17 August 2010

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, HONOURABLE JUSTICE SRI D. APPA RAO
    By, PRESIDENT & SMT. M. SHREESHA
    By, HONOURABLE MEMBER

    Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. M.R. Harsha, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents: --------



Judgment Text

Oral Order: (Per Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon?ble Member)



Aggrieved by the order in C.C.N o.620/09 on the file of District Forum-II , Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.


The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that opp.party no.1 is the manufacturer of Panasonic T.V. L.C.Ds. having Head Office at Noida , U.P. , 2nd opp.party is the authorized sales and service center of Panasonic products having head office at Chennai and opp.party no.3 is the sales and service branch at Hyderabad and the dealer to promote the business of opp.parties 1 and 2. The complainant purchased LCD T.V. 32LX75 from Habsiguda branch of opp.parties on 7.11.2007 for a sum of Rs.49,999/-. The complainant submits that the said T.V. never worked properly and became dead on 27.4.2008 and when the complainant reported to authorized service agent of opp.party Comtel Systems and Services, Karnic Towers, Khairatabad, Hyderabad one service technician Mr.Ramesh visited the complainant?s house on 28.4.2008 and reported that LCD T.V. panel unit dead and after one week Mr.Vijay service technician visited complainant?s house and lifted LCD TV set to their service center, and finally delivered the TV after 20 days . Again the LCD TV started problems even after repairs with similar defects and finally failed to work on 11.5.09 and the same was reported to the service center of opp.party on the same day. On 12.5.09 service technician of opp.party visited the complainant?s house and reported that LCD TV unit is dead with similar problems as earlier. After 10 days Mr.Vijay, Technician telephoned and requested to send bill along with guarantee card and the complainant sent xerox copies along with letter dt. 27.5.2009 by registered post. The complainant issued legal notice dt. 5.6.09 to opp.parties 1 to 3 to replace the LCD TV with new LCD TV with warranty for which the opp.party no.2 sent a reply dt.16.6.09 agreeing to replace the panel unit at their cost price as a special consideration. The complainant issued further notices dt.19.6.09 and 1.7.09 and 15.7.09 to agree for concessional repair charges but he did not receive any communication about the same. Alleging deficiency in service the complainant approached the Dist Forum to direct the opp.parties to replace the LCD TV with new TV with warranty, in case opp.parties failed to replace, Rs. 49,990/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. be paid to the complainant from the date of purchase, to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and to pay costs of Rs.5000/- .


Opp.parties filed counter contending that the television set purchased by the complainant was having warranty of 12 months and it became defective after about 18 months of purchase being out of warranty and the complainant was informed the charges for the panel and for replacing the same, and he was also offered substantial concession on the price but the complainant failed to confirm the same and hence the television set could not be repaired . The opp.parties submit that they are ready and willing to carry out the repairs on the complainant paying the charges for the panel and the charges for repairs. The opposite parties submit that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A11 and B1 and pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint


Aggrieved by the said order , the complainant preferred this appeal.


The representative of respondent opp.party on 10.8.2010 requested time to engage an advocate, but today on 16.8.2010 he stated that they are not engaging an advocate and have nothing more to submit.


Heard and on perusal of the material on record, we observe that the case of the complainant is that he purchased LCD T.V. vide Ex.A1 on 7.11.2007 for an amount of Rs.49,990/- . Ex. A2 is the service card evidencing the complaint made by the complainant that the LCD T.V. panel is dead. The complainant submits that though the T.V. was repaired the problem repeated and the same was reported to the opp.party on 11.5.09 he did not receive any response. Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice vide Ex.A6 19.6.09 and received a reply vide Ex.A7 dt.25.6.09 from OP.2. The complainant corresponded with the opp.parties vide Ex.A8 notice dt.1.7.09 and a reminder vide Ex.A10 dt.15.7.09. It is the case of the complainant that, though opp.party no.2 communicated that repairs would be done on concessional repair charges immediately, he did not receive any response. It is the case of the opp.party that the complaint is beyond the warranty period of 12 months but still they readily offered to attend to the repairs at cost price. Ex.B1 is the warranty card which evidences that the warranty is for a period of 12 months. The opp.party in their affidavit before the Dist. Forum contended that they are ready and willing to replace the panel of the television provided the complainant pays the charges since the warranty is only for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase of T.V. They deny that there is any manufacturing defect in the T.V.


A brief perusal of the record shows that the complainant herein filed a memo and also an affidavit stating that the opp.parties 1 to 3 are ready to replace the panel on 11.2.2010 free of cost and requested for an adjournment before the District Forum. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that after the LCD T.V. was given to the opp.party service centre on the very next date of hearing the opp.party stated that the T.V. was repaired and the complainant filed a memo stating the same and prayed for fresh warranty to be issued. The complainant also relied on the decision of State Commission, Delhi, in Godrej & Boyce. Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Amar Singh Jain & Anr. reported in 1993 (1) CPR page 47 in which the State Commission had upheld the order of the Dist. Forum extending the warranty period to 3 years, when the Godrej Refrigerator unit was changed four times, holding that trouble free service was not guaranteed. In the instant case the opp.party is not denying that there is any fault pertaining to the LCD T.V. panel or that they rectified the defects. Their only contention is that (Ex.A5) the T.V. was purchased on 7.11.07 and the warranty is only up till 7.11.2008 and the complaint was received on 12.5.2009. Job Card issued on 17.2.2010 clearly evidences that the complainant has given the T.V. for repairs and has even filed a memo that he has taken back the T.V. from the opp.party but prays for fresh warranty for 12 months. Taking into consideration that the LCD T.V. set was bought on 7.11.07 and within the warranty period i.e. on 27.4.08 the LCD panel became dead and this was rectified, but once again failed on 11.5.2009 and became completely dead, an

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d the fact that the panel had become dead twice within a period of 18 months i.e. on 27.4.08 within the warranty period and on 11.5.09 six months after the warranty period, we are of the considered view that the opp.party having rectified the T.V. on 17.2.2010 after the complainant approached the District Forum, to meet the ends of the justice, the complainant is entitled to a fresh period of warranty of 12 months on the subject part of LCD T.V. panel from 17.2.2010 to 17.2.2011. In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the Dist. Forum is set aside directing the opp.parties 1 to 3 to extend the warranty period on the subject part of LCD T.V. from 17.2.2010 to 17.2.2011 and to pay costs of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
O R