Vishakhapatnam District Commission Holds Panasonic India And Its Retailer Liable For Failure To Resolve Issues With Newly Bought LED TV

Brief Facts:

Dalli Archana (“Complainant”) purchased a Panasonic Smart LED TH 32 FSGOOD Television from Tirumala Music Pvt. Ltd. (“Retailer”) for Rs. 20,501/-, with a one-year warranty. Within two months, the Complainant noticed that there was an issue with the speakers of the TV. The volume would automatically flatulate on the TV. Due to the Covid-19 lockdown, she couldn't file a complaint with the Retailer or Panasonic immediately.

Subsequently, the Complainant filed a complaint with the Retailer, and later, the mechanics from Panasonic and the Retailer inspected the TV and suggested to the Complainant that if the issue persisted then the motherboard would need to be replaced. Two days later, the TV stopped working. Despite futile attempts to contact Panasonic and the Retailer, the Complainant didn't receive any satisfactory response or reply. As a result, the Complainant sent a legal notice to Panasonic and the Retailer demanding a replacement for the TV. A service engineer visited to inspect the TV and recommended a replacement. However, the Complainant didn't receive any reply from either of the parties. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (“District Commission”).

In response, Panasonic refuted all the claims made by the Complainant and only acknowledged the purchase of the TV. According to them, a service engineer addressed the initial complaint and resolved the software issue and sound problem, with the complainant acknowledging the TV's satisfactory condition. Later, a subsequent complaint was raised after five months, but according to Panasonic, the Complainant prevented the service engineer from addressing the problem. The Retailer didn't appear before the District Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that although the Complainant acknowledged the repair after the first visit of the software, different kinds of issues came up with the TV, for which a second visit was required. The District Commission noted that the defect detected by the service engineer during the first visit was cited as a "Main ACB Problem," whereas, in the second visit, the defect was specified as a "Sound issue and Bluetooth problem." Therefore, the District Commission held that although the Complainant acknowledged the first repair, the TV stopped working altogether within a few days.

Consequently, the District Commission held Panasonic India and the Retailer liable for deficiency in service. It directed Panasonic and the Retailer to pay the Rs. 20,501/-, cost of the TV to the Complainant along with the interest of 6%. It further directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.

Case Title: Dalli Archana vs Panasonic India Private Limited and others.

Case No.: CC/67/2021

Advocate for the Complainant: SM Kakshayani

Advocate for the Respondent: Gannai Vivek Karra and Latika Deo

Click Here To Read/Download The Order