Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/407/2017

Tirath Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

JS Bagga Adv.

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                       

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/407/2017
Date of Institution	:	22/05/2017
Date of Decision	:	22/03/2018

 

1.     Tirath Singh aged 50 years son of Sh. Sher Singh resident of H.No.282/1, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.

 

2.     Ashish Tyagi aged 33 years s/o Sh. Hari Parkash Tyagi resident of House No.37, 3^rd Floor, Gulmohar City, Derabassi, Distt. Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.     Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.50, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

 

2.     Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Managing Director.

 

3.     M/s Techno Care, SCO 128-129, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022.

 

4.     ID Corporation, SCO 2425, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. J.S. Bagga, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Vikrant Sharma, Counsel for OPs 1 to 3
	:	OP-4 ex-parte

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 19.10.2015, the complainant purchased an LED TV from OP-4 for a total consideration of Rs.1,14,000/-.  At the time of installation, it was found that the same was not a brand new one and had scratches on its panel.  The said fact was pointed out to the engineer who was installing the LED as well as to the service centre Panchkula.   The complainant requested the OPs to replace the LED, but, they failed to do so and ultimately informed that the manufacturing of that model had been stopped.  The OPs offered to replace the same with an upgraded model to which the complainant agreed. The complainant also made payment of Rs.10,000/- on 25.3.2016 for the purpose of replacement of his LED TV with the new upgraded model.  However, the OPs failed to either replace the LED TV or refund the price thereof despite service of legal notice. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs 1 to 3 in their written statement have averred that the LED in question was a demo set and the same was sold to the complainant at a heavy discount by the dealer.  It has been averred that after purchasing the LED, the complainant approached the service centre on 3.11.2015 raising the issue of display.  Due to shortage of display panel, the same was ordered by the service centre and alternatively the complainant was offered for paid upgrade at MRP difference of Rs.80,000/-. The complainant agreed and deposited advance of Rs.10,000/- with the dealer, but, the same was supposed to be deposited with the service centre. In such a scenario, the service centre could not process the request unless the amount of Rs.80,000/- was deposited with it. It has been denied that there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the LED in question. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs 1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-4 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.7.2017.
4.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of OPs 1 to 3.
5.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the contesting parties.
7.         It is evident from the retail invoice (Annex. C-1) coupled with the affidavit of Complainant, that he purchased the LED in question after spending an amount of Rs.1,14,000/- on 19.10.2014 from OP-4. The sole grouse of the Complainant is that during the installation of the LED in question, he came to know that the product delivered to him was not a brand new one; rather, it had scratches on its panel. On the request of the Complainant for replacement of the same, OPs informed him that manufacturing of that model had been stopped. Finally, after various requests by the Complainant, OPs agreed to replace the same with an upgraded model, after payment of difference of amount by Complainant. Despite payment of Rs.10,000/- on 25.03.2016, till date no initiative has been taken by OPs for providing the replacement of the disputed product.
8.         The stand taken by OPs No.1 to 3 is that the Complainant wrongly deposited advance amount of Rs.10,000/- with the Dealer which was actually needed to be deposited with the Service Centre. It has also been contended that the Service Centre could not process the request of replacement with the upgraded model, unless the amount of Rs.80,000/- was deposited with it.
9.         Significantly, the Opposite Party No.4 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.4 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.4 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
10.         Perusal of e-mail (Annexure C-2) makes its crystal clear that Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the OPs and till 02.10.2016 the date of sending this e-mail, no action whatsoever was taken by OPs to initiate the process of replacement, which itself tantamounts to deficiency in service.
11.         Pertinently, in Para No.2 of their written statement OPs No.1 to 3 have contended that the LED in question was a demo set and was sold to the Complainant at a heavy discount by the dealer. But, OP No.4 (the Dealer) did not even give its appearance during the proceedings of the present case to corroborate the defence taken by OPs No.1 to 3. Even the retail invoice (Annexure C-1) does not reveal that any such discount was ever given or that the LED in question was a demo set. In these set of circumstances, the contention of OPs No.1 to 3 in this regard is hollow and deserves no merit. Hence, the act of the OPs firstly, in selling a sub-standard product to the Complainant; secondly, their failure to replace the same even after charging Rs.10,000/- for the upgraded model and finally, non-responding to the genuine requests for such a long time, proves deficiency in service on their part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs No.1 to 4 are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

1. To refund Rs.1,14,000/- being the invoice value of the LED T.V. in question to the Complainant, alongwith interest @7% per annum, from the date of its purchase i.e. 19.10.2015, till realization.
2. To refund Rs.10,000/- deposited by the Complainant for new upgraded model, along with interest @7% per annum, from the date of deposit i.e. 25.03.2016, till realization.
3. To pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
4. To pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [i] & [ii] above from the date of purchase i.e. 19.10.2015 and from the date of deposit i.e. 25.03.2016, respectively, till realization. The compensation amount as per sub-para [iii] above, shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [iv]. 
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
22/03/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”