Order-15.

Date-01/08/2016.

This is a case emanating from allegation of deficiency of service.

The case of the Complainant in short is that he purchased a Sony Bravia LCD Television model no.KLV 32V400A from E-Zone, Homland Mall, Kolkata on 18^th October, 2008. The Complainant made a complaint to the concerned Company’s authorized Service Station Nav Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bagmari, Kolkata-700 054 on 18^th August, 2015 for negative picture. On 20^th August, 2015 a technician came and found that the Gamma IC is defective and needs to be replaced. But when the Complainant informed him that Gamma IC had already been replaced in the year 2012 the said technician told that Gamma IC cannot be replaced twice for the panel will not accept it and the television set need to be replaced. The Complainant thereafter raised the issue to the concerned Company vide mails from 2^nd August, 2015 till 5^th September, 2015, but the Company showed stubborn and negative attitude. After three months of agony, mental harassment, he again on 28^th December, 2015 availed a walking service at the same authorized centre of the Company and deposited the television there for repair. On 31^st December, 2015 he received the said television set in person and he was charged Rs.1,810/- for defective Gamma IC. The Complainant alleges that he was harassed mentally and also had to undergo agony and financial loss. Hence this case.

OP appeared in this case and filed Written Statement contending inter alia that the Complainant has no cause of action and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is submitted by the OP that the Complainant purchased the television in question on 18-10-2008, he approached the service centre of the answering OP on 13-09-2012 with the first service request i.e. after four years from the date of purchase, if the issue of negative picture in the said TV. The service Engineer of the OP replaced the Gamma IC free of cost and the Complainant accepted the TV set without any protest on 15-09-2012. The Complainant again approached the service centre of the OP on 20-08-2015 i.e. after eight years from the date of purchase and it was found on inspection that the Gamma IC needs to be replaced with additional charges, but the Complainant was adamant for the replacement of panel. The Complainant again approached to Service Centre on 28-12-2015 over the same issue. The OP replaced the Gamma IC vide job sheet no.J53447651 and delivered the set to the Complainant with full satisfaction. This OP has alleged that the complaint is frivolous and harassing and the Complainant need to be punished under Section 26 and 27 of C.P. Act.

Point for Decision

1. Whether the OP is guilty of deficiency of service?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

We have travelled over the documents filed from the end of the respective parties.  It appears that the complainant purchased a television set in the brand name of Sony long back in the year 2008 and the said television set was warranty protected for one year calculating on and from 18-10-2008 to 18-10-2009.  It also appears that the complainant approached the service centre of the OP with issue relating to negative picture.  The service engineer on inspection replaced the IC twice and the set was accepted by the complainant without any demur or objection.  It also appears that the warranty for the said television set expired in the year 2009 and after that the complainant came to the OP for repairing in the year 2012 and, thereafter, once again after expiry of another four years.  We know that in respect of post warranty services, it is a pet service and subject to availability of the spare parts in the market.  The law binds a manufacturer to indemnify its customers for any damages within the warranty period and after warranty period the service of course is paid service.  We are fortified by a decision reported in Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2508. 

          Under the above stated facts and circumstances and having regards to the materials on record, we think that the complainant is pursuing the instant case without any reasonable cause and in most unfair manner.  We do not find any deficiency in service from the side of the OP. 

We hold that the instant complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. 

In result, the case fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP with penalty of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to this Forum within one month from the date of passing this order i.d. provision u/s.27 of the C.P. Act will be initiated.

Order-16.

Date-30/08/2016.

In terms of judgement passed by this Forum on 01/08/2016 in connection with CC/22/2016, the complainant -Mahboob Ali Jafri intends to comply the order and accordingly an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) nly in cash is deposited to this Forum as Penalty.

Let the amount be accepted and deposited to the SCF , W.B Issue Office receipt . Note on the relevant register.