Date of filing: 06.9.2017                                 Date of Order : 09.8.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

  SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER

THURSDAY THE 09^th DAY OF AUGUST 2018

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 66 / 2017

P. Nikileswar, age 11 years,

Rep. by his father P. Siddaiah,

S/o Krishnaiah, aged 48 years,

Residing at D.No. 41/655-68,

Sankarapuram, Kadapa.                                                       ….. Complainant.

Vs.

1.  The Managing Director,

     Sony India Private Limited, Registered Office A-31,

     Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

     New Delhi – 110044.

2.  Prathap Agencies, Rep. by its Proprietor,

     The Best Shoppe, D.No. 3/30A, Railway Station Road,

     Opp. To Siddartha Lodge, Kadapa.                             ………Opposite parteis

            This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 31.7.2018 in the presence of Sri C.H. Jagadeshwar, Advocate for Complainant and Sri G.S. Murthy, Advocate for opposite party No. 1 and O.P.2 called absent and set exparte on 10.10.2017 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

 (Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member), 

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying this Hon’ble Forum, be pleased to pass a decree in favour of complainant and against the opposite parties to pay Rs. 27,000/- towards cost of the T.V or replacement of new T.V. in the place of old T.V. with warranty to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and mental agony and to pay                    Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the complaint with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of job card i.e. 26-12-2016.          

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-   The complainant purchased Sony Led 32 R 412 T.V from O.P.2 for Rs.27,000/- on 24.11.2014 from the date of purchase T.V. was giving troubles.  The father of the complainant went to O.P.2 and get T.V repaired and after few days the same trouble was repeated.   Complainant’s father asked to O.P.2 to replace the T.V with new one.  O.P.2 stated that they had no permission for replacement as there is small defect and it was rectified so it cannot be replaced.  Again T.V. started giving trouble and the father of the complainant visited O.P.2 shop and asked for new T.V. and O.P.2 repaired T.V. on 04.01.2016.  Again T.V. was sent to Rayalaseema Enterprises, Sony Authorized service center Tirupati and got it repaired and soon after getting back the T.V. started trouble.  O.P.1 is maker of the T.V and O.P.2 is the seller of T.V. agent of O.P.1 so both are liable for mental agony of the complainant as the defect was not rectified.  The complainant approached Hon’ble Forum for reliefs.

3.             Written version filed by the O.P.1 and O.P.2 called absent and set exparte on 10.10.2017.

4.             O.P.1 is the company incorporated under the provisions of companies Act 1956.  Warranty strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions.  The complainant 1^st approached service center of O.P.1 on 23.12.2015 raising an issue of Lines on Screen of the said LED. The complainant approached at the stage after expiry of warranty.  Despite of that the service center replaced the display panel + BIS Board.  After that the complainant never visited the service center of O.P.1.  The warranty period of T.V. was only one year.  No material evidence has been placed by the complainant saying that there were inherent defects in T.V. if there was inherent defect by the complainant kept quiet for one year.  So it proves that there was no deficiency in service in relation to the subject T.V.  It is therefore, prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs. 

5.             On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
2.  Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties or not?
3.   To what relief?

6.              Arguments submitted by both parties i.e. complainant and O.P.1.  Written arguments filed by the O.P.1.  On behalf of complainant Ex. A1 to A5 documents were marked and on behalf of Opposite party No.1 Ex.B1 to B4 documents were marked.

7.             Point Nos. i & ii.  As per Ex. A1 & B2 it is very clear that the complainant purchased T.V. from O.P.1 shop.  Ex. A2 clearly reveals that the warranty is one year from the date of purchase.  Ex. A3 clearly discloses the date of service i.e. 04.01.2016 it clearly shows that after expiry of the warranty the complainant had services with the opposite parties.  As per complaint and Ex.A4 the complainant never revealed that what type of defect was there in T.V.  As per Ex. B3 the terms and conditions of the warranty cannot be held liable for claims falling outside the scope of warranty. As per Ex. A2 there is only one year warranty but after expiry of warranty also the complainant had free service of his T.V. in Ex. A3.  There is no clarity why the complainant had kept quiet if the T.V. was giving troubles from the date of purchase. The complainant had not furnished any documents which establish the fact that the T.V. was giving troubles from the date of purchase.  Ex. B4 clearly reveals after expiry of the warranty period only the complainant get free service of his T.V. from the opposite parties.  In these circumstances and evidence on record the complainant utterly failed to prove his case by documentary evidence to prove that there was inherent defect in the T.V. from the date of purchase.  So the complainant is not liable for any compensation as prayed by him and at the same time there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.             Point Nos. iii. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

              Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the  9^th day August  2018. 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant :   NIL                                   For Opposite parties:            NIL 

Exhibits marked for Complainant: - 

Ex.A1        Invoice bill for purchase of T.V. for Rs.27,000/-.

Ex. A2       Warranty card.

Ex.A3        Service Job sheet issued by Rayalaseema Enterprises dt 4-01-2016.

Ex.A4        Office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant counsel to the opp parties with  Postal Receipt.

Ex.A5        Served postal Acknowledgement card of opp party..

 Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party No.1:– 

Ex.B1        P/c of the Board Resolution dated 07-02-2014.

Ex.B2        P/c of  Bill/ Invoice dated 26-11-2014,

Ex.B3        P/ of the Warranty Terms and Warranty Card.

Ex.B4        P/ of  Retail Invoice dated 23-12-2015.

MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT  

Copy to :-

1. C.H. Jagadesh, Advocate for complainat.

2. Sri G.S. Murthy, Advocate for O.P.1.

3. Prathap Agencies, Rep. by its Proprietor, The Best

    Shoppe, D.No. 3/30A, Railway Station Road, Opp. To

    Siddartha Lodge, Kadapa

B.V.P