Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/500

Shashi Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

G.S.Kalyan Adv.

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                         Complaint No: 500 dated 07.07.2017.                                                                          Date of decision:23.07.2018            

Shashi Kumar aged 42 years s/o Sh.Devi Chand r/o 9, Harnam Singh Nagar, Threekay Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant                                                  Versus                                                              1.M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2.M/s Deekay Electronics, 458, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Main Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                       …..Opposite parties

            Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT                                                                        SH. VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Gurjeet Singh Kalyan, Advocate.                            For OPs                             :         Ex-parte

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complainant purchased the LED TV of Sony make, model KLD43W950D having product 8D No.18745201 and Serial No.8513026 from OP2 vide bill dated 8.102.2016 by paying the price of Rs.73,000/-. This LED TV was got financed from Ms BFL. Warranty of one year against all defects was given on this LED TV. However, on 21.03.2017, a sudden loud noise came out from the LED TV and on the screen, lines started appearing. Complainant never touched the LED TV and even not done anything with it. LED TV was affixed on the wall by the authorized engineer/representative of Ops for the last 5 months. Complainant lodged complaint on 21.03.2017 itself on toll free number and thereafter, representative of OP1 visited the premises of complainant on 22.03.2017. After inspecting the LED TV, it was found as if inner panel of LED TV was damaged internally. So, it was claimed that product not covered by warranty because of physical damage caused to the product. That representative even found as if there was not even a single scratch from the outside. Complainant sent letter dated 25.3.2017 to OP1, but the same never replied and nor necessary repair carried out. However, on sending of reminder, a reply was received from OP1, through which, it was disclosed that on estimated payment of Rs.29,000/-, defect will be removed. However, it is claimed that manufacturing defect in the LED TV was there and same never occurred on account of mis-handling. It is claimed that OP2 may have replaced the parts of the product and thereafter sold to the complainant. LED TV in question is having latent manufacturing defect, which is not curable. So, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to refund the price of Rs.73000/- of LED TV in question along with interest @24% per annum. In the alternative, brand LED TV set on same model in replacement is sought. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                Both OPs are ex-parte in this case.

3.                Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and thereafter, closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments of counsel for complainant heard and records gone through carefully.

5.                Perusal of invoice Ex.C2 reveals that LED TV in question was purchased by the complainant from OP2 by paying the price of Rs.73,000/- on 8.10.2016. Copy of warranty card Ex.C1 is produced to show as if warranty to remain valid for one year from the date of purchase and as such, it is obvious that warranty was to remain valid up to 7.10.2017. However, defect in the LED TV  occurred on 21.03.2017 and thereafter, representative of OP1 visited the premises of complainant for finding as if there was no scratch on LED TV from  outside. If scratch on LED from the outside not found by the said representative on inspection carried on 22.3.2017, then story of physical damage to the product in question is improbable. Moreover, complainant through complaint as well as affidavit Ex.CA claims that he has not touched the LED TV, but the defect occurred suddenly when the LED TV was in working condition on 21.3.2017 and as such, that circumstance also reflects as if the defect in the LED TV occurred not because of physical damage caused to it, but due to some internal defect. As the LED TV was within warranty period and as such, it is the duty of Ops to rectify the defect in the LED TV, free of cost.

6.                Complainant sent notices Ex.C3 and Ex.C5 through postal receipts Ex.C4 and Ex.C6 for calling upon Ops to remove the defect, but those have not been removed and as such, certainly complainant suffered mental agony and harassment on account of non-rendering of due services by Ops by way of repairing of LED TV in question, despite the fact that complainant was having right to get the same repaired free of cost because of non-expiry of warranty period.

7.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OPs to repair the LED TV in question free of costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs, whose liability to pay these amounts held as joint and several. Payment of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Vinod Gulati)                           (G.K. Dhir)

                              Member                                  President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 23.07.2018.

Gurpreet Sharma