Delhi

StateCommission

A/1115/2014

SHAMBHU KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision: 17.01.2017

 

First Appeal- 1115/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1197/12)

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                Shambhu Kumar

        S/o Sukhdev Jee

        Rohini,

        Delhi

 

……Appellant     Versus   1. Soni India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office A-31, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044   2. Hariom Retail Pvt. Ltd. B-3/2, Ashok Vihar Phase-II, (Opp. Police Station) Delhi-110052                                                                             …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

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

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (in short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint Case No. 1197/12 whereby the aforesaid complaint case has been dismissed.

2.             Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are that a complaint u/s 12 of the Act was filed by the appellant i.e. complainant before the Ld. District Forum stating therein that he had purchased a TV Set Model No.LED  KDL32Ex650 on 31.08.2012 from respondent-2/OP-2 for a sum of Rs. 42,500/- which was paid in cash. The set was installed by the engineer of respondent-1/OP-1 on 03.09.2012. On installation the appellant/complainant discovered a scratch on the screen of TV. The same was pointed to the engineer who had came to install the set. He assured that the TV would be replaced. Thereupon, the appellant/complainant contacted respondent-2/OP-2. However, he refused to replace the same. The appellant/complainant registered a complaint with respondent-1/OP-1 and also sent e-mails on 06.09.2012 and 09.09.2012 but received no answer. He had also sent a legal notice dated 22.09.2012. The reply was received from respondent-1/OP-1 on 25.09.2012 wherein certain details were asked. The same were replied by appellant/complainant on 03.10.2012 but no action was taken. Thereafter, the aforesaid complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum seeking replacement of defective TV with fresh TV and Rs. 5500/- towards litigation costs and compensation for harassment.

3.             Notice of the complaint was issued to the respondents/OPs. The respondent-1/OP-1 contested the complaint case by filing written statement. However, respondent-2/OP-2 did not appear before the Ld. District Forum and was proceeded ex-parte. In the written statement of respondent-1/OP-1 it is stated that it provides a warranty of one year on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it. It was further alleged in the written statement that respondent-1/OP-1 cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. Under the terms of warranty the respondent-1/OP-1 is liable to repair the product where there is defect in the workmanship and not when the defect has arisen due to an external cause. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant had purchased a TV in question in perfect working condition and the same was admitted by the appellant/complainant by signing the job sheet which was signed by the appellant/complainant at the time of installation of LCD at its place. It was further alleged that on 05.09.2012, the appellant/complainant approached customer care department of respondent-1/OP-1 with the complaint “A/V Quality not satisfactory-white spot are coming”. Upon receipt of the said complaint the service engineer of responeent-1/OP-1 was deputed at the house of the appellant/complainant at the TV was found working fine. However, service engineer observed that there was minor scratch on LCD screen and informed the appellant/complainant that there is a damage due to an external impact. It is alleged that as per terms of warranty when the product is externally damaged, the same is not covered under the warranty and engineer of respondent-1/OP-1 informed the repair charges of the same as Rs. 14,482/- to appellant/complainant vide letter dated 19.10.2012. The appellant/complainant did not approve the same and filed a false complaint before the Ld. District Forum.

4.             Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits before the Ld. District Forum. After hearing the parties, Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing that no proof was filed by appellant/complainant in support of allegations levelled in the complaint.

5.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed.

6.             We have heard appellant who is appearing in person and counsel for the respondent-1/OP-1.

7.             It is contended by the appellant/complainant that when the TV was sent to his house for installation, there was a scratch on the screen and he had pointed to the engineer who had came to install the same. The said engineer had assured that the defective TV set would be repaired. It is contended that in the job sheet dated 03.09.2012 appellant/complainant had nowhere mentioned that the TV was in OK condition. It is contended that the Ld. District Forum has not appreciated the complete material on record while passing the impugned order. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent-1/OP-1 has submitted that there was a scratch on the screen and the same was not there when the TV was installed at the residence of the appellant/complainant. It is contended that the TV was in perfect condition. It is further contended that even in the complaint dated 05.09.2012 nothing of that sort was stated by the appellant/complainant. It is contended that no material is placed on record by the appellant/complainant that there was a scratch on the TV when it was installed by the engineer of responeent-1/OP-1 and the impugned order has been rightly passed.

8.             We have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

9.             The main allegation of the appellant/complainant is that when the TV was installed as his house there was a scratch on the screen. The appellant/complainant has not placed on record any evidence before the Ld. District Forum or before us to substantiate the aforesaid allegation. As per him the TV was installed on 03.09.2012 and he had pointed out the same at the time of installation. The service job sheet dated 03.09.2012 signed by the appellant/complainant clearly indicate that TV was in perfect condition at the time of installation. Nothing is stated about scratch being there at the time of installation as is alleged. The complaint dated 05.09.2012 is not in writing but was on phone. As per respondent-1/OP-1 the said complaint was with customer care department about “A/V Quality not satisfactory-white spot are coming”. Even the aforesaid complaint is of no help to appellant/complainant. In the above background, e-mail dated 06.09.2012 and legal notice dated 25.09.2012 can’t be taken to substantiate the case of appellant/complainant.

10.            Ld. District Forum has appreciated and considered the entire material on record and thereafter has passed the impugned order by holding that the scratch was not there when the TV was installed at the house of the appellant/complainant. The relevant portion of the order passed by Ld. District Forum reads as under:

                        “The complainant has filed retail invoice for Rs. 42,500/- of Hari Om Retail Pvt. Ltd. dated 31.08.2012. He has filed the copy of emails dated 6.9.2012 and legal notice sent to Sony India Pvt. Ltd. On careful perusal of the complaint and documents placed on record, it became evident that though the complainant raised an allegation that at the time of purchase the TV set under reference had a scratch on the screen of TV which was irritating on watching but he has not filed any proof to support his charge. There has nothing been placed on record by the complainant to prove that scratch existed initially on TV screen when TV was installed by the engineer of OP No. 1. The complainant has stated that at the time of installation of TV, the defect of scratch was pointed out to the engineer and the engineer mentioned to replace it but no proof on this statement is available on record. The scratch could have been caused later on to some external impact or mishandling of TV. There is no proof whatsoever of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1, therefore, cannot be held responsible for deficiency and negligence. OP No. 1 provides a warranty of one year on its products in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. As per clause 8 of the terms of warranty it shall not apply to damages caused to the product by the external cause beyond company’s control. The complainant has mentioned that screen on the screen unit was observed at the time of installation but no such remarks were stated by the complainant or the engineer on the service job sheet which was duly signed by the complainant. The scratch, therefore, seems to have occurred due to some external impact and was not present initially on screen unit. It is derived, therefore, that the TV was in perfect working condition at the time of purchase and scratch was caused later on due to mishandling or some external cause.

                        In the light of above discussion, we have reached at the conclusion that the case is devoid of any merit and is dismissed herewith.”

11.            Nothing has been placed on record before us by the appellant/complainant to substantiate that there was already a scratch on the screen when the TV was installed at his house. Had there been so, the appellant/complainant ought to have stated when job sheet dated 03.09.2012 was signed by him.

12.            In these circumstances, the respondent-1/OP-1 cannot be held responsible in any manner. The warranty of the product is not for external damage. There is no deficiency in service on their part. We agree with the reasoning given by the Ld. District Forum in dismissing the complaint. No infirmity or illegality is there in the impugned order. The appeal stands dismissed.

 

                 A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information.

                File be consigned to record room.         

                 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member