STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 69 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 27.03.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 29.03.2017 |
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd.A-31, Mohan Cooperatives, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi-110044.
- M/s Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Service Center)through its authorized signatory, SCO 126-127, 1st floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh.
- M/s Melody House Agency (Dealer) through its authorized signatory SCO 95 (OPP. Neelam Cinema), Sector 17D, Chandigarh.
…Appellants
V e r s u s
Sukesha Gusain, House No.121, Sector-C, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt, Tehsil and District Ambala.
...Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 12.01.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.853/2016..
Argued by: Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have filed this appeal against order dated 12.1.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant.
2. As per facts on record, the complainant purchased one Sony LED television from appellant No.3/OP No.1 vide invoice dated 16.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,24,990/- (Annexure-I). The said unit was manufactured by Appellant No.1/OP No.2. The LED television abruptly stopped working on 10.6.2016. The matter was immediately reported to the OPs and an engineer of Appellant No.2/OP No.3 (Service Provider) inspected the unit at the residence of the complainant. He replaced the circuit/motherboard. However, screen of the LED unit still remained non-functional. It is, thereafter, that when the OPs failed to repair the unit in question, the complainant/respondent filed a consumer complaint on 5.10.2016. By that time, the complaint was filed, OPs had failed to repair the defective unit.
3. Upon notice, a joint reply was filed. The facts were not disputed. It was only said that there was no manufacturing defect in the LED unit. It remained functional for about one year without any complaint and deficiency was indicated only 5 days before the end of the warranty period.
4. Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint, by granting following relief to the respondent/complainant;
a] To refund the invoice price of the LED in question to the complainant;
b] To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
c] To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.
5. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the LED unit purchased by the complainant. However, he failed to controvert that when defects were indicated, major parts of the units were changed. By noting above facts, the Forum also observed as under ;
“In our considered opinion OPs wrongly claimed that they received complaint of LED in question on 11.6.2016 and after inspection of LED offered for the repair of the LED free of cost which complainant rejected and insisted for the replacement for the same; whereas the job sheet Annexure-II reveals that the complainant made complaint on 10.6.2016 and it was attended on 11.6.2016 wherein the service engineer of OP 3 reported as under:-
“after replaced the LD board, set need to be LCD panel replacement. And new Board removed from set and old board fitted there.”
From the above it is clear cut case of the complainant that the motherboard which is a main component of the unit in question i.e. LED was replaced. Not only this, it goes unrebutted that the screen of the LED was also replaced but despite this the defect pointed out could not be rectified and it persisted.
Further on going through the submissions of the OPs in regard to their readiness/offer to repair the LED in question clearly establish and corroborates the allegation of the complainant that despite the replacement of the core components of the LED the same is still non-functional and the engineers of the OPs failed to rectify the defect despite replacing the above components.
As the OPs failed to rectify the defect of the LED in question, it transpires that the LED is having inherent manufacturing defect, which warrants that the complainant be reimbursed the amount spent by her in purchasing the same, as the complainant during course of arguments argued that she has lost faith in the present company so wants her money to be refunded. We can well imagine that the complainant had spent huge amount i.e. Rs.1,24,990/- to enjoy the product hassle free but the very purpose of purchasing the product got frustrated when the product in question became defective and could not be repaired despite replacement of its main components.
The plea of the OPs that the complainant had enjoyed the LED in question for whole year does not come in way of the refund of the amount as the unit in question admittedly got defective on the verge of expiry of the warranty period i.e. clearly during the warranty period and despite replacing its main components it remained defective. Thus, the complainant cannot be forced to be left at the mercy of the OPs for uncertainty that the unit would be rectified or not. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the OPs to refund the invoice price of the product in question.”
6. It was rightly noted by the Forum that there was manufacturing defect in the LED unit. To say so, it was observed that even on replacement of LED board, the unit needed LCD panel replacement. It was further noted that new board was removed from the set and an old board was fitted therein. Virtually all major parts of the LED unit stood changed, even then it was not functioning properly. In view of the above, we find no case made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
8. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
29.03.2017
