DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 945/2014
No. __________________ Dated : ____________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SANJAY KUMARS/o LATE SH. UDAI NATH VERMA,
R/O 1121, 1ST FLOOR,
DR. MUKHERJEE NAGAR, DELHI-110009. …COMPLAINANT
,
VERSUS
1. M/s SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT: A-31,
MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDL. ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044.
ALSO AT: UNIT 405-407, 4TH FLOOR,
COPIA CORPORATION SUITES,
JASOLA DISTRICT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110010.
2. M/s JAGOTA ENTERPRISES,
H-4/3, MODEL TOWN-II,
DELHI-110009. …OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 21.08.2014
Date of Decision: 01.03.2018
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs underSection 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging
CC No. 945/2014 Page 1 of 7
that the complainant purchased a Sony LED KDL 32EX520 television set (wrongly mentioned as Samsung in the complaint) for a sum of Rs.43,000/- vide invoice no. 2294 on 10.11.2011 from OP-2. The complainant further alleged that at the time of purchasing the television, the sales executive of OP-2 fully convinced the complainant that the product is of highest quality and durable for a long period not less than 5 years and at the same time OP-2 gave guarantee for free service/replacement of parts. The complainant further alleged that the said television set went out of order/stopped working on 04.04.2013 and the same day the complainant complained to call centre of the manufacturer company i.e. OP-1 about the defect vide complaint no. 13662095 on 04.04.2013 and after the complaint an engineer of OP-1 visited the complainant’s premises and without examining the television set said that the Panel of the television set is not working and it has to be repaired or replaced. The complainant further alleged that on persuasion of the complainant the engineer examined the television set and confirmed that the Panel of the television set is not working and informed that some part has malfunctioned and need to be replaced and a charge of Rs.2,350/- has to be paid for the same and he also informed that it will take 2 days to repair. On enquiry of the complainant, the engineer of OP-1 further stated that warrantee
CC No. 945/2014 Page 2 of 7
of the replaced/repaired Panel will not be more than one month. Thereafter 2 days, the engineer of OP-1 again visited the complainant’s premises and repaired the television set after which it started working and the engineer also pointed out that since the complainant is residing near the vicinity of Najafgarh Drain, hence due to evaporation of dirty moisture of the drain the silicon chips are getting rusted, hence due to the reason the television set is getting damaged very soon which was very much surprising and as it was never represented by OP-1 in any of his advertisement or before to the complainant nor of any souvenir which was given to the complainant at the time of purchase with the television is warned and otherwise the complainant would not have purchased it. The complainant further alleged that just after one month i.e. 20.05.2013, the said television set again stopped working automatically and the elder brother of the complainantlodged the complaint with OP-1 through e-mail i.e. kmanojverma@ gmail.com and it was duly registered at request no. 14174599 and it was assured that the engineer will respond soon but it did not happen then once again the complainant complained through telephoniccall then the engineer visited the complainant’s premises and said that the power panel of the television is damaged due to aforesaid reason and it has to be replaced.When the complainant asked to
CC No. 945/2014 Page 3 of 7
replace it then he told that the power panel is not available in India so we have to import from Japan and hence it will take time and since thenthe television set is lying dead. Thereafter, the complainant informed the whole episode to OP-1 and OP-2 telephonically and requested either to replace the said defective panel or the television set with a new one. The complainant further alleged that despite of several requests and reminders to both the OPs, OPs failed either to replace the defective panel or the television set with a new one and as such said television set is lying useless and dumped at the house of the complainant and the complainant personally visited so many times to the office of OPs but all efforts made by the complainant went in vain and without any fruitful result and due to deficiency in service by both the OPs the complainant has suffered not only mentally but also financially and the complainant was forced to purchase another television set by taking loan and the complainant alleged that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund Rs.43,000/- as the cost of the disputed television as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing him mental pain, agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.50,000/- towards litigation charges.
CC No. 945/2014 Page 4 of 7
3. The OPs have been contesting the case and filed reply and in the reply, OPs submitted that the first complaint received was vide job no. J30586881 dated 05.04.2013, ASC: Hi-End Solutions, symptom:/V quality not satisfactory-negative images appearing on screen, repair action: BAA Board repaired set OK, coil replaced, customer paid Rs.978/-. OPs further submitted that the set was used by the complainant for two years without any hassles and he enjoyed the television fully and at the time of change the board and the coil the engineer who visited the site and opened the television for repairs also looked at the internal parts of the television and admittedly informed the complainant that since his house was located near the Najafgarh drain therefore, the internal parts of the television set were corroding and would be required to be replaced soon and this fact is mentioned in the user manual under the heading of the location of the television. OPs further submitted that the placement of the television and the location of the house of the complainant is not the fault of the OPs and further that OP-1 provides a warrantee of 1 year on its products from the time of original purchase and liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms & conditions of the contract of warrantee. OPs further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
CC No. 945/2014 Page 5 of 7
4. The complainant filed replication to reply of OPs and denied the contentions of OPs but has not specifically disputed the contention of the OPs that his house is located near Najafgarh Drain.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also filed copy of retail invoice no. 2294 dated 10.11.2011 for purchase of Sony LED TV of Rs.43,000/- issued by OP-2, copy of delivery challan no. 2032 dated 10.11.2011 issued by OP-2, copy of warrantee card issued by OP-1 and copy of cash receipt/retail invoice vide no. HI-End/2012/1478 dated 06.04.2013 of Rs.2,350/-issued by HI-End Solutions.
6. On the other hand on behalf of OPsMs. Meena Bose, Authorized Representative of OP-1 filed her affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the reply of OPs.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. It is not disputed by the complainant that defect in the T.V. arose for the first time after expiry of period of about 18 months from the date of purchase i.e. after the expiry of warrantee period. Moreover, it is not disputed by the complainant that his house is located near Najafgarh Drain. As such there are more chances of the television set getting corrosion very soon and thereby causing defect in the
CC No. 945/2014 Page 6 of 7
T.V. For which OP-1 being the manufacturing company cannot be held liable. Accordingly, we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by way of any cogent evidence and there is no merits in the complaint. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 1stday of March, 2018.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K.GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MENBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 945/2014 Page 7 of 7
