DATE OF FILING :06/06/16
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of May 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 163/2016
Between
Complainant : Emmanuel, S/o Sebastian,
Pallath House,
Muthalakodam P.O.,
Thodupuzha – 685 605
(By Adv: Cejo J.Thychery)
And
Opposite Party : Madonna Care Centre,
Parachalil Building,
D No.26/306 – D1,
Vengalloor P.O.,
Thodupuzha – 685 608
(By Adv: Agimon K.P.)
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that,
The complainant entrusted a television due to a damage on its L.E.D. Panel. After check up, the respondent, being an authorised service centre of Sony Electronics, had advised the complainant that the panel need to be changed, for which a sum of Rs.15,250/- would be charged in total. Agreeing to this the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1000/- as advance to the technician of the opposite party, and he had issued a receipt for the same. Thereafter the opposite party contacted the complainant and informed that the panel cannot be replaced, instead of that they agreed to issue a new television made by Sony India Pvt Ltd for an amount of Rs15,250/-. As demanded by the opposite party, complainant send an amount of Rs.14,242/- by way of DD dated 19/09/15 in favour of Sony India Pvt Ltd. At the time of receiving the DD the opposite party had promised that the new television would be delivered within two weeks from the date of receipt of DD. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party for several times
(Cont....2)
-2-
for getting a new T.V as they promised. But the opposite party did not cared the demand of the complainant. Later on, the complainant had issue a legal notice to the opposite party, demanding for the new T.V. Even though the opposite party accepted the notice they failed to do so. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party complainant approached this Forum and filed this complaint for directing the opposite party to deliver a new T.V as they had promised and also to direct them to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost.
Upon notice opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version. In their version opposite party contented that, the relief claimed by the complainant is for replacement of his old T.V Set with a new one. But the complainant has not made the manufacturer, as a party in this complaint. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reason of non-jointer of necessary parties.
Opposite party further contented that, after examining the T.V. set entrusted by the complainant it was found that the panel of the T.V. Set is damaged and the same is to be changed. This was informed by the opposite party, and also directed him that to bring the purchase bill and warranty card of the T.V.set. On the date of entrustment of DD, on 19/09/15, the opposite party again demanded the purchase bill and warranty card of the T.V.set, but the complainant failed to produce it before them. Later the complainant informed that this TV set was purchased by him from outside India. Thereafter it is came to the knowledge of the opposite party that it is not manufactured by the Sony India Pvt.Ltd.
Since the complainant did not co-operate with them, by producing the purchase bill and warranty card after repeated requests the opposite party directed the complainant to collect the DD from the opposite party along with Rs.1000/- that he paid as advance. Since the complainant did not turned up to collect the DD, the opposite party was constrained to sent the same by registered post to the complainant, but he refused to accept it, and the said registered notice was sent back to the opposite party. Matter being so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in this matter and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
(Cont....3)
-3-
Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 were marked. Ext.P1 is the advance receipt dated 12/09/13, Ext.P2 is the copy of lawyer notice dated 20/11/15, Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 are the postal receipt and AD card respectively.
From the defence side one Albin T. Philip, Technician of the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext.R1 to Ext.R9 were marked, Ext.R1 is the postal receipt dated 03/11/15, Ext.R2 is the unserved notice dated 03/11/15 along with postal card, Ext.R3 is the copy of the notice dated 03/11/15 issued by the opposite party to the complainant, Ext.R4 is the postal receipt dated 03/12/15, Ext.R5 is the registered cover returned as unclaimed addressed to the complainant send by the opposite party, Ext.R6 is the intimation regarding the issuances of cheque for Rs.1000/- dated 30/11/15, Ext.R7 is the original DD dated 19/09/15, Ext.R8 is the service job sheet dated 15/09/15, Ext.R9 is the copy of reply notice dated 07/12/15.
Heard both sides,
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The Point:- We have gone through the entire pleadings evidences on record and documents filed by both parties and also had heard the learned counsels for both sides.
The main ground of attack of the opposite party was that the complainant had not produced the purchase bill and warranty card. Without these document the opposite party cannot do anything in this matter. Hence the opposite party requested the complainant to accept the DD, which he was issued in favour of Sony India Pvt Ltd. Since the complainant did not accept the request of the opposite party, opposite party constrained to return the DD along with a cheque of Rs.1000/- to the complainant by registered post. But the complainant wilfully returned the registered on the ground that addressee refused to accept. For substantiating the contention, opposite party produced
(Cont....4)
-4-
9 documents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that, at the time of entrusting the T.V set to the opposite party, complainant informed by the opposite party that its warranty period is over, and he is ready to meet the repairing expenses, including the spare parts. Complainant had not demanded any benefit under warranty and after accepting the request of the complainant, the opposite party inspected the T.V. set and found that its LED panel is defective. As per the Ext.R8 service job sheet, the TV was handed over to the opposite party on 15/09/2015. In warranty column of this document it is specially stated as out of warranty Model of the TV is also noted as KDL/32 EX 520 IMS.
The learned counsel further pointed out that at the time of entrusting the TV to the opposite party, the complainant also informed to them that, he is purchased it from a Foreign Country. If it is not informed, the opposite party can trace out it through its Model number. Complainant had not hidden anything from the opposite party, because his demand was only to repair the TV and he is ready to meet its expenses. Hence the opposite party himself informed him that, the LED Panel is not available, and they are ready to provide a new one, if the complainant is willing to pay an amount of Rs.15,254/- being the purchase price of a new TV manufactured by Sony India Pvt Ltd. Agreed to the request of the opposite party, complainant had issued the amount through demand draft in favour of Sony India Pvt Ltd, as demanded by the opposite party themself.
The learned counsel further argued that in this matter there is no relation with the manufacturer, since the complainant had not demanded anything as free of cost, or claimed any manufacturing defect under warranty. Hence no question of any non-jointer of party is arising.
On going through the evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had not claimed any free service or any manufacturing defect of the TV set in question. As usual being an authorised service personal, of Sony products, complainant entrusted the TV to the opposite party, and informed his willingness for meeting the expenses of repair. Further he informed that the TV is out of warranty and it is stated in Ext.P1 job sheet also . It is also seen that the opposite party received Rs.1000/- on 12/09/15 as advance and thereafter the complainant issued a demand draft on 19/09/15 in favour of
(Cont....5)
-5-
Sony India Pvt. Ltd as demanded by the opposite party, on a firm belief that the opposite party will delivered him a new TV. On further going through the evidence, it is seen that complainant had not demanded anything unlawfully and he approached the opposite party only for curing the defect of his TV. The option of a new TV set was suggested by the opposite party himself and complainant immediately accepted the suggestion and paid the amount that demanded by the opposite party. At this juncture, it is surprising that for what purpose opposite party demanded the purchase bill and warranty card of the damaged TV. There is no demand from the part of the complainant regarding manufacturing defect or anything to repair under warranty. From the records and reply version it is obvious that the opposite party returned the DD along with Rs.1000/- only on the reason that complainant had failed to produce the purchase bill and warranty card of the TV in question.
Here it is the bounden duty of the opposite party, to convince the complainant as well as the Forum that for what purpose he demanded the purchase bill and warranty card. Since the complainant has not raised any claim regarding the warranty. Hence opposite party miserably failed to establish that for repairing the TV set or issuing a new TV, it is necessary to go through the purchase bill and warranty card of old TV, and it is mandatory in the case of Sony India Pvt Ltd. Without sufficient material to clarify the demand of production of document as insisted, the denial of issuing a new TV set after accepting the Demand Draft and advance money on flimsy and baseless ground is a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for that opposite party is alone liable. No question of any non-jointer of manufacturer is arises here, since manufacturer has no connection in this matter with directly or indirectly.
Hence the opposite party is directed to deliver a new TV, manufactured by the Sony India Ltd., as they promised by accepting the demand draft and also directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
(Cont....6)
-6-
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Emmanuel Sebastian
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Albin T. Philip
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The advance receipt dated 12/09/13
Ext.P2 - The copy of lawyer notice dated 20/11/15
Ext.P3 - The postal receipt and AD card
Ext.P4 - The postal receipt and AD card
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - The postal receipt dated 03/11/15
Ext.R2 - The unserved notice dated 03/11/15 along with postal card
Ext.R3 - The copy of the notice dated 03/11/15 issued by the opposite party to
the complainant
Ext.R4 - The postal receipt dated 03/12/15
Ext.R5 - The registered cover returned as unclaimed addressed to the
complainant send by the opposite party
Ext.R6 - The intimation regarding the issuances of cheque for Rs.1000/-
dated 30/11/15
Ext.R7 - The original DD dated 19/09/15
Ext.R8 - The service job sheet dated 15/09/15
Ext.R9 - The copy of reply notice dated 07/12/15
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
