Delhi

StateCommission

A/571/2016

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

MONIKA SRIVASTAVA

12 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 14.03.2017

 

First Appeal-571/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the District Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in complaint case No. 248/15)

 

 

        In the Matter of:

               

         

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Registered office: A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110049                                                                            ……Appellant-1   Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 51/2, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Opposite Khalsa College, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005                                               ……. Appellant-2      Versus     Pradeep Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Rajveer Gupta R/o 16/819E, Bapa Nagar, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005                                    …….Respondents

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.             Present appeal is directed against the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (ISBT), Kashmere Gate, Delhi in complaint case No. 248/2015 whereby the complaint of the respondent/complainant was allowed.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant purchased Sony Led KDL- 42W700B for Rs. 64,900/- on 27.07.2014 from OP-1 i.e. M/s Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The grievance of the respondent/complainant was that after eight months of its purchase the said Led TV stopped working and he lodged complaint with appellant/OP-2 vide request ID No. 25129432 and ID No. 2544107 on 25.08.2015 and 26.04.2015 respectively and appellant/OP-2 picked up the TV. The said TV was delivered back to respondent/complainant after its repairs. As LED was not working properly the respondent/complainant again made a complaint on 11.05.2015 vide request ID No. 25384842 which was again attended on 05.06.2015 by appellant/OP-2 who picked up the LED TV but did not deliver it to the respondent/complainant till date. The respondent/complainant sent several reminders and also sent e-mail to the appellant/OP-2 to resolve the problem but he did not get any response from the appellant/OP-2.

3.             Aggrieved by the conduct of the appellant/OP-2, the complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund the cost of the TV i.e. Rs. 64,900/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of purchase of the LED TV till realization and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards costs of litigation.

4.             Notice was issued to the appellant/OP-2 and respondent-2/OP-1. Both contested the case and filed separate written statements. In written statement respondent-2/OP-1 i.e. M/s Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. admitted that the respondent/complainant had purchased LED TV for a sum of Rs. 64,900/- and all the other allegations were denied on the ground that other allegations were related to appellant/OP-2. The appellant/OP-2 also admitted the purchase of Sony LED TV for Rs. 64,900/- and also admitted that LCD Panel of the respondent/complainant TV was replaced absolutely free of costs and denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint and requested for dismissal of the complaint. The respondent/complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint. In support of its complaint the respondent-1/complainant filed his own affidavit and also filed certain documents. Appellant/OP-2 also filed affidavit of Sh. Priyank Chauhan and submitted the documents.

5.             After hearing the arguments of both the parties, Ld. District Forum reached to a conclusion that appellant/OP-2 and respondent-2/OP-1 had sold defective TV to the respondent/complainant and held as under:

                        “After reserving the order affidavit of Priyank Chauhan on behalf of OP was filed on 06.09.2016 stating that the TV was in a good condition and admitted that the said TV is with the authorized service centre of OP. So, it is proved that at the time of filing complaint and today defected TV purchased by the complainant was picked up by OP-2 and it is not in the possession of the complainant.

In these above mentioned circumstances and facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that OPs have sold their defected TV to the complainant and the defective TV is in possession of the opposite party since 05/06/2015 till date. It proves deficiency on the part of OPs. Hence we directed OPs as under:

        (i) To refund the sale price of TV i.e. Rs. 64,900/- (Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred) to the complainant.

        (ii) To pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) to the complainant for harassment and mental agony caused to him.

        (iii) Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousand) as litigation charges.

        Both the parties will be liable to make the payment severally and jointly. This order will be complied within 30 days and failing with an interest @ 10% per annum will be payable from the date of order, till realisation.”

6.             Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, appellant/OP-2 has filed this appeal before this Commission.

7.             We have heard counsel for the appellant/OP-2 at the admission stage.

8.             The appellant/OP-2 has challenged the impugned order mainly on the following grounds:

        i.      the respondent/complainant is not a ‘consumer’

        ii.      there is no deficiency on the part of appellant/OP-2

9.             We have gone through the record carefully and find that both the OPs i.e. appellant/OP-2 and respondent-2/OP-1 in their written statement filed before the Ld. District Forum had admitted that complainant purchased Sony LED TV for a price of Rs. 64,900/- vide invoice dated 27.07.2014. Therefore, admittedly the respondent/complainant is a ‘consumer’ and the objection raised by the appellant/OP-2 that respondent/complainant is not a ‘consumer’ has no force. The second ground taken by the appellant/OP-2 that there is no deficiency on the part of appellant is also not correct. The documents exhibited by the complainant in its affidavit as exhibit CW 4 proves that appellant/OP-2 vide its service job sheet dated 30.05.2015, picked up the complainants TV Model No. KDL- 42W700B. It is also not denied by the appellant/OP-2. The Ld. District Forum vide dated 01.09.2016 also directed appellant/OP-2 to file their respective affidavits in respect of the possession of the TV. The appellant/OP-2 had failed to file any affidavit in compliance of the order dated 01.09.2016 within time granted by the Ld. District Forum. However, the respondent-1/complainant filed the requisite affidavit. Therefore, the affidavit filed by the respondent/complainant went unrebutted and it was proved that the above LED TV was not in the possession of the respondent/complainant.

10.            Perusal of the impugned order shows that after reserving the case for order, Sh. Priyan Chauhan on behalf of appellant/OP-2 had filed an affidavit on 06.09.2016 stating that the TV was not in good condition and admitted that the said TV was with the authorized service centre of appellant/OP-2. Hence, there is no doubt that at the time of filing of the complaint before the Ld. District Forum and during the pendency of the complaint the defective TV purchased by the respondent/complainant was in possession of the appellant/OP-2. If the TV was in working condition, there is nothing on record to show as to what effort were made by appellant/OP-2 to return the same to respondent-1/complainant. Rather for finding in whose possession the TV was, the Ld. District Forum had to direct the parties to file the affidavits. Even during the course of admission hearing, it is admitted by the counsel for the appellant/OP-2 that the TV is still lying with appellant/OP-2. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that appellant/OP-2 had sold defective TV to the respondent-1/complainant and the defective TV is still in possession of the appellant/OP-2 since 05.06.2015 till date. There is a clear deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP-2.

11.            Thus, we find no illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine.        

                A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.  

(Justice Veena Birbal))

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member