Kerala

Idukki

CC/224/2018

Jose V xaviar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madona Care Center - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 13/12/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of April 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 224/2018

Between

Complainant : Jose V. Xaviour,

Vadakkel House,

Muthalakkudam P.O., Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Manager,

Madona Care Centre,

Vengalloor P.O., Thodupuzha.

2 . The Manager,

Bismi Appliences,

Thodupuzha P.O., Thodupuzha.

3 . The Managing Director,

Sony India Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Muscat Tower,

SA Road, Kadavantra,

Kochi – 682 020.

4 . The Manager,

Lulu Mall,

Edappally P.O., Kochi.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased a TV on 21/09/17 from LuLu Mall, Qatar manufactured by the third opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. Before purchasing the TV, the complainant made convinced its international warranty of one year offered by the manufacturer. At the time of purchase the authorised seller confirmed that this warranty is applicable in India also, and he will get after sale service in the authorised service centre of Sony in India. The TV worked for 7 months. In the month of May onwards the TV is totally dead and cannot 'on' it. Immediately the complainant registered

(Cont...2)

 

-2-

complaint before the first and third opposite parties being the authorised service centre and manufacturer respectively. The complainant entrusted the TV to the first opposite party and on inspection the first opposite party informed that since the TV is purchased from outside India, the defect can be cured by the authorised service centre of Gulf Country. Thereafter the complainant approached the first opposite party for getting back the TV after curing the defects, the opposite parties failed to deliver the TV to the complainant still. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for getting back his TV after curing the defect and further directs the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice the opposite parties entered appearance and the first opposite party filed detailed reply version contenting that they are only the service agent of Sony India Pvt Ltd., The complaint of the TV in question was attended by this opposite party and found that the panel assembly of the TV got defective which needs to be replaced. This particular unit is purchased from Gulf Country and hence if they get support of parts they can do the repair. Opposite party further contented that this complaint was attended by them with proper care and attention. As such there is no service deficiency from their side and they can complete the repair work if registered parts are supported by the selling agents.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Ext.P1 is the copy of bill, Ext.P2 is the copy of guarantee card, Ext.P3 is the copy of service job sheet dated 18/05/18, Ext.P4 is the copy of service job sheet dated 20/09/18 and Ext.P5 is the copy of forma invoice.

 

From the defence side the first opposite party alone filed the reply version. Other opposite parties are not turned up to contest the matter.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

(Cont...3)

 

-3-

 

The Point:- It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a TV from Qatar manufactured by Sony after ensuring its international after sale service and replacement warranty. Within the period of warranty the TV showed complaint and entrusted it to the first opposite party, the authorise service centre of Sony products. After inspection, the first opposite party informed that its panel is defective and it has to be sent to the concerned sales point for curing the defect. The complainant entrusted the TV to the first opposite party for curing the defect on 18/05/18. But still the TV is not returned to the complainant after curing its defect. Such a situation complainant forced to approach this Forum for redressing his grievances by alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties. On perusing the evidence, Forum found that the averrment in the complaint are not challenged by the opposite parties and at the same time the first opposite party confirmed the defect of the TV and its warranty.

 

Considering the nature of the complaint, the Forum is of a considered view that, the complainant spent a huge amount for purchasing the TV and within a short period it showed defect and in operative. Such a situation the manufacturer is legally bound to satisfy the customer by extending the speedy service to the satisfaction of the customer. In the instant case the manufacturer miserably failed to extent their service to the complainant. The first opposite party, from the evidence it is seen that immediately getting information about the defect, they taken up the matter without any delay, and it is seen that further delay is caused from the side of the third opposite party, the manufacturer and marketing agency. Being the whole distributor of Sony Electronics products in India, the third opposite party is legally bound to answer the short comings of the manufacturer of Sony TV.

 

Hence on the basis of above discussion, Forum found that the third opposite party is liable to redress the grievances of the complainant. Hence complaint allowed. The third opposite party is directed to initiate steps to return the TV in question to the complainant after curing its defect to the satisfaction of the complainant with a warranty of one year from the date of return of the TV, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this

 

(Cont...4)

-4-

order, failing which third opposite party is directed to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The third opposite party is further directed to pay cost of Rs.5000 to the complainant.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of April, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 -Jose V. Xaviour

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The copy of bill

Ext.P2 - The copy of guarantee card

Ext.P3 - The copy of service job sheet dated 18/05/18

Ext.P4 - The copy of service job sheet dated 20/09/18

Ext.P5 - The copy of forma invoice.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT