Order-16.
Date-20/12/2016.
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 from M/s. Capital Electronics (OP No. 2) vide Cash Tax Invoice No. BFL/1666/13 dated 15.03.2014 at an amount of Rs.27,000/-. The said TV set started malfunctioning within a month of purchase. Some parts of the TV set have been replaced on the basis of complaints of the Complainant. But, in spite of that the TV set is not functioning properly. The Complainant thereafter, alleged several complainants over telephone and in writing to the OPs. Complainant was assured by M/s. Capital Electronics that the TV set would be replaced by a new one. But till date no replacement of the TV set of the Complainant is made. Hence this case.
The OPs have contested the case in filing W.V. contending inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. It is stated that the Complainant is pursuing the present case in most unfair manner for illegal gain. It is stated that the Complainant approached the service centre of answering OP on 17.01.2015 when the first service requested after using the TV set for 11 months from the date of purchase.On inspection by Service Engineer of the answering OP, O.P. offered a free of cost repair. The Complainant denied the request of free of cost repair rather demanded a free of cost exchange of the television set with a new set of same model. It is also stated that the Complainant has failed to establish that there was manufacturing defect of the TV set by way of cogent credible and Evidence supported by the opinion of an expert. It is stated that the Company provides 12 months warranty to customers for any chance failure O.P. makes free of cost repair during the warranty period. Thereafter, any repair beyond warranty period is done on chargeable basis to customer. It is stated that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as such. It is also stated that the Complainant has failed to show that there was defect in the TV set and that the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant. These OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled over the documents of record i.e. photocopies of job sheets, photocopy of cash tax invoice, photocopies of letters of the Complainant dated 10.10.2014, 29.10.2014, 17.01.2015,20.07.2015,28.4.2015, 27.05.2015 and 14.08.2015. Copy of letter received from Sony dated 17.11.2014 and other documents on record.
It appears that the Complainant purchased the subject TV set of Sony make on 15.03.2014 for Rs.27,000/-. It also appears from the job sheets that the Complainant registered a complaint with the OPs on 12.6.2014 for ‘no power - no LED glowing’. It is also appears that the mechanic of Sony Company came to the place of the Complainant and replaced some parts of the TV set. But, it also appears that the subject TV set did not come to order and in spite of replacement of parts the TV set is not functioning properly. We also find the photocopy of job sheets showing registration of the complaint on 17.07.2014, as being ‘no power’.
We also find that the Complainant, thereafter, informed the OPs over telephone and inwriting on several occasions on different dates alleging the complaint and non functioning of the subject LED set. We find that the OPs took no effective step for removing the defect of the TV set in question. When the same defect ‘no power’recurs time to time,we can come to a conclusion that the TV set must be suffering from inherent defect and even removal of some parts could not improve the condition of the subject LED set. We find that no mechanic or technician visited the house of the Complainant thereafter since the time of first visit to detect the problem or to remove it. We think in the subject TV set is beyond repair having manufacturing defect as such. We think that OPs have been deficient in rendering services to the Complainant. We also think that the said TV set suffers from inherent defect as specified in the complaint. Moreover, we find that the subject TV set started mal functioning since after a few months from its purchase within its warranty period. In the present circumstances we think that Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
OPs are directed to replace the subject TV set by a new one of similar description which shall be free from any defect within one month from the date of this order. In default Complainant will be at liberty 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.
