Delhi

East Delhi

CC/469/2017

PRADDEP CHAUHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

16 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 469/17

 

Shri Pradeep Chauhan

S/o Shri Lokender Pal Singh

R/o Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi- 110094

 

….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. A.P. Network Services

Through its, Authorized Representative, Manager

At B-1, Plot No. 5, Sagar Complex LSC,

New Rajdhani Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi- 110092

 

2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

Through its, Authorized Representative

Registered office: A-31, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044

                                                                                 …Opponents

           

Date of Institution: 09.11.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 16.08.2019

Judgement Passed on: 22.08.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

           Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by Shri Pradeep Chauhan, the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against A.P. Network Services, (OP-1) the authorized service centre and Sony India Pvt. Ltd., (OP-2) the manufacturer.

            The facts in brief are that, the complainant had purchased one Television; Model no. KLV-32BX350 IN5 manufactured by OP-2 from Metro Mall, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, in the month of June, 2013. The said product was under one year warranty. It has been stated that the said product was not working right from very beginning for which the complaints were registered from time to time. It has been further stated that despite repairs the product worked only for short duration for which repairs were carried out and as a matter of practice, every time the product was handed over to service centre for repairs the job sheets were taken back by the service centre.

            In the month of June, 2014 complaint was registered with respect to the screen of the product, service executive of OP-1 visited and informed that same could not be repaired at home hence, the television was taken by him to the service centre i.e. OP-1. After some time the complainant was informed that the said product was beyond the repairs and another television bearing model                  no. KLV-32R422B, serial no. 3371771 (here in after the exchanged product) with one year warranty was delivered to complainant on 22.11.2014. The complainant also bought extended warranty for two years on 17.11.2015, which was valid from 19.11.2015 till 19.11.2017.

            The complainant was shocked that the exchanged television was also not working properly for which the complaints were registered from time to time. Lastly, on 06.11.2017 complaint was registered with OP-2, where the complainant was informed that the said exchanged product was completely dead. Despite several requests the complainant’s grievance remained unattended, hence, the present complaint seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective LED TV with new one alongwith extended warranty or refund Rs. 29,244/- with interest @12% per annum; Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment for deficiency in services and unfair trade practice and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.

            The complainant has filed photocopy of the service job sheet dated 14.05.2017 and 26.09.2017; letter for full and final settlement of model                   no.  KLV-32BX350 IN5 Sr. No. 3399920 of date 22.11.2014; extended warranty card and invoice dated 19.11.2014 for the exchanged television with the complaint.     

            Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs, thereafter, reply was filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2. It was submitted that OP-1 was authorized service centre of OP-2. OPs have stated that the complainant had purchased the first product after detailed demonstration of the functions alongwith limited warranty of one year which was provided by OP-2, the manufacturer. The above mentioned product was replaced on 19.11.2014, as a goodwill gesture towards the complainant and it was only after two years and six months, the complainant had approached the service centre on 12.05.2017, with the issue of “TV automatically goes off”. It was further submitted that the complainant was attended immediately and upon inspection the exchanged product was found to be “OK”.

            Again, on 14.05.2017, the complainant approached the service centre with the issue of “6 times blinking”. The exchanged product was repaired, where the “ITC panel was repaired + changed the O Cell and LS Bar”. The repairs were done free of cost and the same was delivered to the complainant in working condition. On 26.09.2017 the complainant again visited the OP with the issue reported on 14.05.2017, where the “LS bar” of the said TV was replaced free of cost. On 09.11.2017 issue of “Green LED still + No Back light, No sound” was reported after which the board of the said TV was replaced also free of cost.

            OP have also submitted that as and when the complainant approached the service centre his complaint was attended, therefore no deficiency in service can be attributed on their part. Rest of the contents have also been denied.

            Alongwith the Written Statement, OP have annexed the Authority Letter issued by proprietor of OP-1; board resolution dated 04.07.2011 authorizing           Ms. Meena Bose; standard warranty terms and conditions, job sheet                                  dated 26.09.2017, tax invoice dated 07.10.2017.

            Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant, where he has got himself examined and has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint. He has also relied on the annexures annexed with his complaint.

            OPs right to file evidence was closed as they stopped appearing and did not file the same despite opportunity.

            We have heard the submissions of complainant and have perused the material placed on record as no one appeared on behalf of OPs to argue. The submission of OPs that the product was repaired free of cost, does not stand as the product was under extended warranty.

            Further, perusal of the record reveals that the issue pertains to the exchanged product which was replaced on 19.11.2014 and was under warranty from 19.11.2015 to 18.11.2017. As per the Written Statement, OP-1 had repaired the product on 12.05.2017, 14.05.2017, 26.09.2017 and 19.11.2017, this implies that the complainant had to visit the service centre for four times within a span of six months and on the last two occasions there was problem with the “LS bar” which was replaced, as evident from the job sheet on record. Therefore, it is clear that there was “off and on” some defect in the product manufactured by OP-2 for which the complainant had to visit OP-1 for repairs.  

           

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we direct OP-2 to refund the cost of the exchanged product i.e. Rs. 29,244/- alongwith           Rs. 7,500/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment this is inclusive of litigation expenses. The order be complied within 60 days from receipt of order. If not complied the awarded amount will carry 6% interest from the date of order till realization.  

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

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

     

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

         Member                                                                                      Member

   

                                        (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                            President