J.MOHAN REDDY Vs. PANASONIC AVC NETWORKS INDIA C.LTD

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) 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 complainants house on 28.4.2008 and reported that LCD T.V. panel unit dead and after one week Mr.Vijay service technician visited complainants 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 complainants 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/- .

(3.) 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.