Delhi

East Delhi

CC/145/2017

CHANDAN SINGH BIST - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.P. NETWORK SERVICE - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jun 2018

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 145/17

 

Shri Chandan Singh Bist

Prop. Ability Electronics

U-70, 3^rd Floor, Shakarpur,

Near Laxmi Nagar Metro Station

Gate no. 2, Delhi.                                                                           ….Complainant

                       

Vs.

 

A.P. Network Servicesw

Sony Authorised Service Centre

B-1, Plot No. 5, New Rajdhani Enclave

Vikas Marg, Delhi – 110 092            Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 10.04.2017

Judgment Reserved on: 04.06.2018

Judgment Passed on: 06.06.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            Complainant Shri Chandan Singh Bist has filed a complaint against A.P. Network Services (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  praying for  return of the TV set after replacement of the power board “A”  with older one and Rs. 1,30,980/- compensation (Rs. 911/- as cost of power board “B”, Rs. 10,600/- as cost of new TV purchased for running business, Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment, business loss and cost incurred by the complainant to visit service centre and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation)..

2.         The facts of the present complaint are that the complainant being a proprietor of electronic items got CCTV installed for which he was using Sony Bravia model KLV-22P402B IN5 for recording and displaying images.  On 03.01.2017, there was problem with the said television for which complaint was registered with OP, who is the authorized service centre of Sony. 

            Job card no. J70047539 dated 05.01.2017 was issued.  On 07.01.2017 the technician of OP visited and changed the power board i.e. “mounted PWB A” for which the complainant paid Rs. 1981/- (Rs. 1291/- being the cost of power board + Rs. 690/- service charge).  It has been stated that the said component worked only for one hour and there after the TV stopped working completely for which again on 12.01.2017, complaint was lodged with Sony service Centre, which was attended on 19.01.2017 vide job no. J70173168.  The complainant was informed that “Mounted PWB Power Unit” needed replacement and “PWB A” was working and it did not require replacement as done on 07.01.2017. 

             It was further stated that complainant requested OP to replace the new power board “A” with the original one and was ready to pay Rs. 380/-            (Rs. 1291/- - Rs. 911/- for “PWB B”), but was asked to pay the entire amount as TV was in the possession of OP.  The complainant informed the manufacturer “Sony India Pvt. Ltd.” vide email dated 02.02.2017 explaining the sequence of events, which was reverted with comments that free of cost service could not be provided. 

            Legal notice dated 15.03.2017 was sent, which was neither replied nor complied.  The complainant had stated that due to the deficiency in service of OP, he was constrained to buy another television. 

            The complainant has annexed copy of invoice having job                   no. J70047539, invoice having job no. 70173168, corresponding mails, copy of legal notice and its postal receipt, invoice of new TV for Rs. 10,600/- alongwith complaint.

3.         Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP, thereafter one Mr. Sandeep appeared, but neither any WS was filed by them nor they appeared on subsequent dates. Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.        

 4.        Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant who has deposed on oath, the contents of the complaint and has relied on the annexures annexed with the complaint. 

5.         We have heard the submissions on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  Reading of job sheet dated 05.01.2017 reveals that “Mounted PWB A” was replaced and job sheet dated 19.01.2017 reflects “Mounted PWB Power Unit” was to be replaced.  As OP choose not to file any reply, all averments made in the complaint have remained unrebutted. 

            The complainant has also placed on record email of date 07.02.2017, wherein the complainant has been informed that the television has been repaired, which is prior to the filing of the complaint.  However, the grievance of the complaint regarding replacement of the wrong part by the technician definitely amounts to deficiency in service. 

            Hence, we direct OP to pay Rs. 1291/- being the cost of “PWB A” + service charge alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint.  We also award Rs. 5,500/- as compensation as OP being an authorized service centre of Sony has failed to deliver services as per standard.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President