BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 21^st day of December 2017

Filed on : 04-03-2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.100/2017

Between

Abhilash M.I., : Complainant

S/o. Indiratmajan, (party-in-person)

Malayankunnel house,

Poovanchira P.O.,

Trissur-680 652

And

1. The Manager, : Opposite parties

Nandhilalth G Mart, (1^st O.P. by Adv. Vinay Menon V,

Edappally Toll, 2^nd floor, Lilly's arcade, Spice's Street

Ernakulam-682 024. N. End, Kaloor, Cochin-682 018)

2. Safwan (Service Manager),

M/s. Madona Electronics

(Authorized Service Centre,

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Edappally,

Ernakulam-686 024.

3. Shikha Dhar, (3^rd o.p. by Adv. K.S. Arundas,

(Customer Relation), KHCAA Chamber, Near High Court,

Corporate office, Ernakulam)

Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

Madura Road,

New Delhi-110 044.

O R D E R

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

This complaint is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repairing the Sony Bravia T.V. purchased from the 1^st opposite party. The complainant's mother had purchased the T.V in March, 2012 and the manufacturer Sony India Pvt. Ltd had offered warranty for one year from the date of purchase and the 1^st opposite party had assured supply of spare parts during the expected life span of the T.V., and also had offered life span service warranty. It is submitted that the T.V. became defective by showing some lines on the screen of the T.V. in the month of December 2016. The complainant approached the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties many times with the request to repair the defect of the T.V. but in vain. Finally the T.V. stopped working and the matter was informed 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. But the opposite parties were not ready to repair the T.V. on the ground that the spare part namely display panel was not available, even when the complainant was ready to pay the cost of the spare parts. The opposite parties advised the complainant to buy a new LED T.V. and that the opposite parties were ready to give 25% discount on the price of the new LED T.V. It is submitted by the complainant that the act of the opposite parties in not repairing the damaged T.V. of the complainant had caused immense financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and this complaint is filed seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to repair complainant's T.V or to pay Rs. 87,000/- with 12% interest, to pay the complainant Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Forum and the opposite parties appeared before this Forum 1^st opposite party filed vakalath and version. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties sought for further time for filing version. 15 days allowed on 23-06-2017 to file their version but the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties did not file their version within the time allowed.

3. Version of the 1^st opposite party.

The 1^st opposite party contended that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case, that the complainant is barred by limitation, that the purchase of T.V. is admitted, that the 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the 3^rd opposite party , that the 1^st opposite party had not provided any after sales service of the products manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party, that the complainant had not contacted the 1^st opposite party at any juncture and there are no negligence, laches or deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party, that the compensation claimed by the complainant has no basis hence the 1^st opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

1. 1. 1. Issue No. i. Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

      2. Issue No. ii. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

      3. Issue No. iii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainant?

5. The evidence in this case consisted of the oral evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1. The documentary evidence furnished by the complainant were marked as Exbt. A1 to A4. The opposite party adduced oral evidence through DW2. DW1 was not present to face the cross-examination.

6. Issue No. (i). The mother of the complainant had purchased a SONY Bravia TV from the 1^st opposite party in March, 2012 and the TV became defective after four years i.e. in December 2016 by showing some lines on the screen of the T.V. and later became completely defunct and this complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not repairing the T.V. despite several requests of the complainant to repair the same on payment basis and the complainant sought for the orders of this Forum to repair the T.V. or to pay Rs. 87,000/- with 12% interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs. The 4 documentary evidences filed by the complainant related to Job card, warranty card and two e-mails dated 21-02-2017 and 20-01-2017. The complainant has not produced the relevant invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party in the month of March 2012 in the name of the complainant's mother. Further the complainant's mother, who is the purchaser of the T.V. is not made a party in the party array of this complaint and the complainant has also not produced any authorization from his mother to conduct this case for and on behalf of his mother. In view of the above facts we find that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party in the party array and for not producing the relevant purchase bill and the authorization from the mother of the complainant. Hence the complaint is found not allowable. First issue is thus decided against the complainant.

7. Issue No. (ii) (iii). It is seen that the complainant has used the T.V for around 5 years and the product is now out of warranty and the complainant is now out of warranty and the complainant is entitled to get the T.V. repaired on payment basis. But in the absence of the relevant invoice we are not inclined to give any directions to the opposite parties. However, the opposite party has admitted the purchase. can very well approach the opposite party and get the T.V. repaired on payment basis. We find that the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation and costs to the complainant. The issue No. (ii) & (iii) are decided against the complainant.

9. In the result, we find that this complaint is found liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we dismiss the complaint.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of December 2017

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent

Appendix

Complainant's Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Warranty card

A2 : Service job sheet

A3 : Copy of g-mail dt. 20-02-2017

A4 : Copy of g-mail dt. 21-02-2017

Opposite party's exhibits:

Exbt. B1 : Copy of letter dt. 02-06-2017

B2 : Copy of resolution

dt. 4^th day of July 2011

B3 : Copy of Repair Service Terms

and Conditions

B4 : Copy of Technical Evalution Form

w.e.f. 27-12-2010

B5 : Copy of a black screen

B6 : Copy of letter dt. 09-03-2017

Depositions

PW1 : Abhilash M.A.

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post : By Hand: