Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/647

A.P.SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIAPVT.LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision :  06.05.2015

First Appeal No.647/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 26.06.2012 in Complaint Case No. 201/2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092)

       

Sh. Awadh Pratap Singh

S/o Sh. Thakur Jagat Pal Singh

R/o B-6/219, Nand Nagari

•  

Delhi-110093                             ......Appellant

                                                           

VERSUS

1. M/s Sony India Pvt.Ltd.

A-31, Mohan Co-Operative Ltd.,

Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044

2. M/s Ankur Electronics

12, Ground Floor,

Cross River Mall

CBD Ground, Delhi-110032             …..Respondents

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

1.    Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.  To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

 

Judgment

 

1.       The appellant has impugned the orders dt. 26.06.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum has passed the following directions.

“In the above circumstances, it will not be possible for this Forum to fasten any liability on OP-1 as complainant himself did not get the TV repaired as per the terms of the warranty and as per the direction issued by this Forum dt. 22.11.2010. As such we dismiss the complaint. However, we provide one more opportunity to the complainant to get the TV set repaired. OP may provide the service as per earlier orders.”

2.       Facts in brief are that the complainant/appellant purchased one LCD T.V. of ‘Sony’ made from OP-2 on 19.10.2009 for an amount of Rs. 29,900/-. On a complaint made by the complainant, it was repaired by the OP-1 in December 2009. In February 2010 on another complaint, service engineer of OP-1 visited the premises of the complainant. Engineer of the OPs advised the complainant to give in writing that a line was appearing on the main panel. Accordingly, complainant gave said thing in writing. Repairs were done. T.V. was not replaced. Finally the complainant approached the District Forum seeking replacement of the T.V. alongwith a compensation of Rs. 1 Lac.
3.       Defence raised by the OP-1 was that T.V. was within the warranty period and the complainant was entitled to all the repairs free of charge subject to terms and conditions. First complaint of the complainant was attended to by the authorised service engineer of OP-1. Upon a second complaint, engineer of OP-1 visited the house of the complainant. Complainant however did not allow the said engineer to carry out the repairs. Complainant kept on insisting on replacement of the T.V.
4.       OP-2 did not appear in the District Forum and was proceeded against ex-parte.
5.       Ld. District Forum on 22.11.2010 passed an interim order which reads as under:-

“Both the parties are present. Ld. Counsel for the OP is directed to repair the TV within 15 days and thereafter the complainant shall move an application whether the TV is in order or not. Allowed time put up on 6.12.2010”.

6.       Ld. District Forum relied upon the e-mail furnished by the OP-1. The same is reproduced below:

“The engineer was sent for repairs. However, the customer used abusive language and did not allow the engineer to repair the set. This can be mentioned in the Forum in the next DOH i.e. Dec 6, 2010”.

7.       Reliance was also placed by the Ld. District Forum on Para 5 of the written arguments filed by the complainant. Para 5 reads as  under:

“During the pendency of the present complaint, this Hon’ble Forum has directed to the OPs to repair the said TV but when the concerned engineer went to the house of the complainant to repair the said TV set, the complainant asked the concerned engineer to give in writing the defect of the said set but the said concerned engineer has refused to give in writing and further falsely alleged that the complainant has misbehaved with the said engineer and has not allowed to repair the said set. In fact, the said set is not repairable as the said set is defective piece as since the date of purchasing, it has not been working properly.”

8.       On the basis of the e-mail and the written arguments of the complainant, Ld. District Forum observed that it was the complainant who did not allow the OP-1 to carry out the repairs. Complainant kept on insisting that he wanted replacement of the T.V. Complainant did not approach OP-1 for repairs. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant, Ms. Sucheta Kumari, Advocate submitted that the complainant had made a call to the customer care of the OP-1 and did not get any response. Perusal of the appeal shows that no such plea has ever been made by the complainant in his appeal. It was the complainant who was required to approach the OP for getting the T.V. repaired. There were no directions to the complainant to contact the customer care of the OP. Be that as it may, in the absence of any plea in writing, we are, of the view that the plea raised by the complainant is simply an afterthought.
9.       In view of the discussion above, we are, of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed.
10. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.