BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 1st day of February 2018
Filed on : 19-12-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.693/2016
Between
Maneesh V.M. : Complainant
S/o. Mani, Areeparambil house, (By Adv. R. Padmaraj, KNB
Mulavukad, Ernakulam-682 504. Associates, Morning Star Building,
Kachripady, Ernakulam, Cochin-18)
And
1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
2nd Floor, Muscat Tower, (party-in-person)
Sahodaran Ayyappan Road,
Kadavanthara,Ernakulam,
Kochi-682 020,
rep. by its Manager.
2. Lulu Connect,
Digital and Electronics
Mega Store, A Division of Lulu
International Shopping Mall,
Lulu Shopping Mall, Edappally,
Kochi-682 024,
rep. by its Manager.
3. Madonna Elecronics,
Service Centre for Sony India,
40/70, F4, AVS Building,
Mahatma Gandhi Rd,
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 035,
rep. by its Manager.
4. Bajaj Finance Ltd.,
3rd Floor – DD Trade Tower,
Kaloor – Kathrikadavu Road
(KK Road) Opp. Well Mart
Super market, Kaloor,
Kochi-682 017,
rep. by its Manager
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
The complainant purchased a Sony LED T.V. from the 2nd opposite party M/s. Lulu Connect on 27-01-2016 on payment of an amount of Rs. 75,900/- towards its price, by availing financial assistance of the 4th opposite party M/s. Bajaj Finance Company. The T.V. was showing malfunctioning immediately after its purchase and the complainant made complaint regarding such defects on 15-05-2016. The 3rd opposite party service personnel approached the complainant and it was repaired. Meanwhile, the complainant had issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties and the panel of the T.V. was replaced. According to the complainant after replacement of the panel, T.V. was showing bad picture quality. The complainant thereafter issued a legal notice on 28-07-2016 against all opposite parties. As per the instruction of the 1st opposite party the 3rd opposite party visited the complainant to repair the T.V. and it was returned after repairs. The complaints that there was scratches on the panel it was replaced by the opposite party and the panel was not a brand new one, but refurnished panel. The complainant had lost to faith in the opposite parties as they did not provide extended service warranty for the panel for one year as promised in their letter in answer to the legal notice issued by the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties, who appeared and resisted the contentions in the complaint, except the 1st opposite party manufacturer.
- It was contended by the opposite parties that there was no deficiency in service in as much as the service was provided to the complainant under warranty by replacing the defective part of the T.V.
4. The complainant produced Exbts. A1 to A7 as their documents and the opposite party produced Exbt. B1 and B2 warranty card and its terms and conditions.
5. The only issue is to be considered is as to whether the complainant had proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
5.The issue
The complainant had purchased T.V. on 27-01-2016 and something went wrong on 05-05-2016, and on intimation the service personal approached the complainant within a week and the T.V. was repaired again it was defective and that fact was intimated through a lawyer notice dated 28-07-2016. The 3rd opposite party, service provider approached the complainant on 24-10-2016 and replaced the panel of the T.V. It is seen from Exb. A5 letter issued by the 1st opposite party manufacturer, that the panel of the T.V. would be replaced with one year warranty from the date of delivery. The only case of the complainant is that he had reasons to suspect that the T.V. was repaired by replacement of a refurnished panel and not with a new one and further that no warranty was provided to the panel as consented in Exbt. A5 by the 1st opposite party. The complainant came to the conclusion that the panel was a refurnished one for two reasons.
- There was scratches on the panel and
- the picture quality was not as good as before.
6. We heard both sides.
7. The contention of the complainant that there was scratches on the panel and the picture quality was below the standard, was to be proved by examining the T.V. by an expert. The complainant did not take any steps to procure any such report before this Forum. As such, we have no material to find that the complainant was supplied with a refurnished panel while repairing the T.V. during warranty period. The complainant has not case that the T.V. is not working at present. We are unable to pass any order in favour of the complainant, since we cannot pass orders on surmises. In the absence of cogent evidence to support the plea that the panel was defective. Consequently the issue is found against the complainant.
8. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 1st day of February 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of invoice dt. 27-01-2016
A2 : Copy of lawyer notice
dt. 28-07-2016
A3 : Postal receipt
A4 : Copy of A.D. Card
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 02-09-2016
A6 : Copy of regd. Letter
dt. 03-08-2016
A7 : Service job sheet dt. 24-10-2016
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : Statement of account
B2 : Terms and conditions
Depositions
PW1 : Maneesh
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
