Order-6.
Date-13/01/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the Complainant in short is that he purchased a TV set of Sony make, model KDI-43-W800C IN5 (LED) TV (4905524998191) for Rs.67, 687/- from OP No. 3. It is alleged that the said TV set had manufacturing defect since the very beginning and the Complainant visited the Sony Service Centre twice. It is also alleged that he has been delivered the second hand TV set, whereas he has paid for a new one. The Complainant also lodged a complaint with the OP No. 3 for replacement by providing a new TV set vide letter dated 12.08.2016, but to no good.Complainant has also alleged deficiency of service against the OPs. Hence this case.
None of the OPs have appeared in this case in spite of service of summons by them and the case has been proceeded ex parte against the OPs.
Point for Decision
1) Whether the OPs have been deficient in rendering service to the Complainant?
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. photocopy of letter dated 12.08.2016 addressed to the OP No. 3 from the side of the Complainant, photocopy of the invoice of purchase of the TV set and other documents on record.
From the Annexure ‘A’, it appears that the Complainant’s TV set in question started malfunctioning within 3 months of the purchase of the product.The Complainant also lodged a complaint on 19.12.2015 to OP No. 3 and some parts of the TV set have been replaced on 24.12.2015 by the OP No. 3. Thereafter the subject TV set again started malfunctioning within 7 months and the Complainant as a follow up again lodged a complaint dated 04.08.2016 to the OP No. 3 and some parts of the TV set have been replaced on 11.08.2016. It appears that the Complainant purchased the TV set on 29.09.2015, so it is apparent that the subject TV set started malfunctioning within the warranty period.
In spite of replacement of parts on two occasions, the TV set continued to mal functioning till date. It is not however, given to understand to us from the side of the Complainant about the nature of mal functioning or the defect. There is also no technical opinion before us, at the instance of the Complainant in respect of the subject TV set to show that it suffers from manufacturing defect.
The subject TV set has also not been sent to any appropriate laboratory to establish that it has manufacturing defect. The Complainant has alleged that he has been supplied with a second hand TV set, whereas he has paid for a new one. But we find that the Complainant did not agitate over the matter at the time of taking delivery of the subject TV set or during the period of usage of the same over months together. Be that as it may, it also appears that the Complainant did not allege any complaint to the OPs that a second hand TV set was supplied to him. It appears that OP No. 3 inspected the TV set twice and replaced some parts of the subject TV as per the version of the Complainant, but TV set continued to give trouble and is not functioning properly. It is not also stated in the petition of the Complainant that whether the TV set is not in useable condition or it has got stopped.
None came from the side of the OPs to contradict or to controvert the version of the Complainant. The evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged and uncontroverted in absence of any contrary and controverting material on record and having regard the materials thereon we think that OPs have been deficient in rendering service to the Complainant. It appears that the Complainant has used the Television set for over one year, so we think that the depreciation value of the subject TV set should also be deducted from the decreetal amount.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte but on merit against the OPs.
OPs are jointly and severely directed to refund the purchase value of the subject TV set Rs.67, 687/- with 50 percent deduction thereof on non standard basis to the Complainant apart from cost of Rs.5, 000/- within one month from the date of this order. OPs are also jointly and severely directed to pay an amount Rs.5, 000/- to the Complainant for causing harassment, mental pain and agony to the Complainant within the said stipulated period.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act and in that case OP shall be liable to pay penal damage at the rate ofRs.5,000/- per month to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
