Hyderabad: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, while dealing with a revision petition, upheld a judgement of the Chandigarh State Commission and ordered Panasonic India Limited to pay compensation to a consumer.
Panasonic had filed a revision petition against an October 2015 order of the State Commission of Chandigarh, which had directed it to refund the cost of a TV to Mohali, Punjab, resident Harbinder Singh.
The District Forum had directed Panasonic and its dealer to pay the complainant Rs 3,05,000, the price of a Panasonic plasma TV, along with Rs 25,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment, and costs of Rs 10,000.
In January 2012 Mr Harbinder Singh had booked a TV priced at Rs 3,05,000 with the authorised dealer of Panasonic by paying an advance of Rs 1,00,000. It was agreed that since the complainant was residing in a rented accommodation, the TV would be delivered in April 2013, when the construction of his own house would be completed.
The balance of Rs 2,05,000 was paid in December 2012. The dealer delivered the TV at the rented residence of the complainant on December 17, 2012 stating that there was no space in the storehouse.
After shifting to his own house, the complainant called for a company technician to install the TV. When the seal was opened, the technician found that the TV was damaged. Accordingly, on the installation slip he recorded: “Piece found broken; opened in front of technicians of the company; to be sent back to the dealer/not satisfied”.
The District Forum opined that since the product was within the warranty period and it amounted to deficiency in service on the company’s part, which had resulted in immense mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
Panasonic had argued that the TV had been with the complainant for almost four months and there was the possibility of it being damaged in that time.
The National Commission agreed with the District and State forums that when the packing of the TV was opened by the Panasonic technician it was found to be damaged and therefore it could not be held that the complainant was responsible for the damage. It dismissed the revision petition and asked Panasonic to pay costs to the consumer and also to withdraw the amount deposition with the forum.
The National Forum noted that 50 per cent of the amount awarded by the District Forum stood deposited by respondent in execution proceedings and, therefore, the actual liability of Panasonic towards the complainant would be Rs 1,70,000.
