Haryana

Ambala

CC/76/2016

Meenu Sehgal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhuvan Retail Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

BhupeshBharara

20 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                     FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  76 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 04.02.2016

                                                          Date of decision   : 20.12.2017

 

Meenu Sehgal aged about 29 years wife of Shri Rahul Jassi, daughter of Shri Krishan Lal, resident of House No. 2123/1, Nahan House, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

 

1.       Bhuvan Retail Plaza at 1293-A/1, Block No.7, Manauli House, Prem Nagar, Ambala City (Haryana)-134003 through its Authorised Signatory.

2.       Ambey Electronic Services, Jail Land, Ambala City, through its Authorised Signatory.

3.       Sony India Private Limited, A31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, Pincode-110044, through its Authorised Signatory.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

MS. ANAMAIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.                       

 

Present:       Sh. Bhupesh Bharara, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, counsel for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that complainant is resident of Nahan House, Ambala City and her marriage was fixed on 25.11.2015 and at her instance, her father became ready to give LED on marriage to the complainant and in order to purchase LED, the complainant  alongwith her father went to the opposite party no.1 at its Showroom and the opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to purchase LED of Sony Company and the opposite party no.1 further assured that there is no any complaint in the LED of Sony Company and the opposite party no.1 has given complete guarantee of one year verbally to the complainant   and the complainant was further assured that if there is any defect in the Sony LED, the opposite party will either replace the same by new one or will return  the money on demand of  the complainant and the  opposite party no.1 further disclosed to the complainant  in the presence of her father that the opposite party no.3 which is manufacturing unit of Sony  are taking  replacement of their goods at once without any delay, if any defective piece  is sold to the customer  and the opposite party no.1 further disclosed  to the complainant  that they are authorized Dealer of Sony Electronic Products. On the repeated assurance of the opposite party no.1,  the complainant  purchased a LED of 40” of Sony –KLV-40R562C-BRAVIA-LED 4555854  of worth  Rs. 47,250/- vide Invoice No. 4514 dated 08.11.2015.

Since, the said LED was purchased by the complainant for taking the same on her marriage through  her father, which was fixed on 25.11.2015 and as the said LED was kept sealed and it was opened in the second week of December, 2015 in the matrimonial home of the complainant  stated above, where her in-laws pointed out that the opened LED was having whole in the middle of bottom and the  in-laws of the complainant  also insulted the complainant that she brought second hand piece of LED after packing the same and then the complainant felt ashamed there and the she requested her in-laws that she will get the same replaced. The complainant then alongwith her father approached the opposite party no.1 with the aforesaid defective LED and requested them that she has been sold a defective LED and get the same replaced; at which the opposite party no.1 disclosed to the complainant that they will inform to the opposite party no.3  and as and when  the approval is received, the opposite party shall change the same. The complainant kept waiting for change of the LED through the opposite party no.1; but nothing was happened and when the complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 time and again,  the  opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to contact the opposite party no.2 and on their report the LED of the complainant will be got replaced. Accordingly, on the advice of the opposite party no.1, the complainant contacted the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 then after inspecting the LED issued Job Card No. J53458360 ON 29.12.2015 and the complainant was assured that her LED will be replaced hardly within a week. Despite waiting sufficiently, the OPs no.1 and 2 did not get the defective sold LED changed by new one and then the complainant complained to the opposite party no.3 through her husband by way of E-mail and photographs of LED was also sent to the to the OP No.3 on 06.01.2016 vide complaint no.030-041-185; but  the LED was not changed; by now; however  the complainant  has been kept in dark by issuing letters by the OP No.3 through  E-mail dated 06.01.2016, 08.01.2016, 11.01.2016, 20.01.2016 and assured the complainant that they will respond her and it has been observed, “ On inspection of the product, we found that the Display Panel found physically damaged and needs to  be replaced  for satisfactory  working of the T.V” and they demanded Rs. 24,900/- on account of cost of repair of LED. Due to the above deficient services rendered by the OPs, the complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony for the same. Hence, the  present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainant purchased one Sony BRAVIA/KLV IN 5 having serial No.4555854 on 08.11.2015 from OP No.1 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions alongwith the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the aforesaid LED. After purchasing the aforesaid LED the complainant approached OP No.2 on 29.12.2015 raising an issue with the “display” in the aforesaid LED. The OP 2 immediately diagnosed the issue raised by the complainant. Upon inspection it was observed that the aforesaid LED has deep scratches on the panel and there were spots on the display. They further submitted that the aforesaid LED was in a physically damaged stage when the same was brought to the OP’s. In a situation wherein the product is brought in a physically damaged condition, the liability strictly lies on the complainant and not the OP’s. That due to the aforesaid facts the warranty stands void. Therefore, the estimated cost of repair was shared with the complainant for carrying out necessary repair action. However, the same was rejected by the complainant and the LED was delivered back to the complainant. They further stated that there was no inherent defect in the said LED and the issue occurred due to the mishandling of the LED. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X  alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-8 and close her evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs have also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-1/A alongwith documents  as annexure R1 to R11 and closed their evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.   The plea of the complainant is that she had purchased the LED in question from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.47,250 /- on 08.11.2015 Annexure C1 but on opening a hole in the middle of  screen was found. The OP could not replace the same despite many complaints through e-mails with the OPs regarding defective LED Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 despite the fact that the LED was carrying warranty of one year. It has been further argued that the OP No.2 assured to her that LED would be replaced  within a week and issued job sheet 29.12.2015.

On the other hand Ops have come with the plea that on 29.12.2015 the complainant raised an issue  with the “display” in the aforesaid LED and the same was  diagnosed immediately and  upon inspection it was observed that the aforesaid LED had deep scratches on the panel and there were spots on the display which shows that it was physically damaged, therefore, the liability strictly lies on the complainant and not on the OPs because the product in question brought in physically damaged condition.

During the proceedings of the case the complainant was asked to bring the LED in question before this Forum which she produced on 13.12.2017. Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member  of this Forum has checked the product in question and gave his report which is as under:-

 “ I have seen LED 40” Sony BRAVIA 4555854 in the presence of both the counsels today i.e. 12.12.2017 at 02.30.p.m. The LED has been played in open court in the presence of both the counsels as well as in the presence of complainant. On the screen of the LED a spot is highlighting and when the LED is in  playing  mode then  the light  comes from the spot which shows that there is defect  in the LED and the same is visible by naked eyes”.  

                   The complainant had purchased the LED in question on 08.11.2015 and filed the present complaint on 04.02.2016  when her grievance was not redressed by the OPs which were brought into notice in the month of second week of December, 2015. It is not disputed that the product was having one year warranty but  the spots highlighted on the screen, which produces the reflection during  play mode, within a short period. Therefore, it is the duty of the OPs to get the same defect free without of cost. The OPs have not  produced any evidence on case file to show that the defect occurred in the LED in  question due to negligence/ carelessness on the part of complainant. It is worthwhile to mention here that any consumer when he buys a new product he is under the impression that the same is bound to be mechanically perfect or that a brand new product would be defect free. A new product could be defected as well.  It could be that some errors are insignificant but there may be many others which substantially impair use of the product.   If the product is defective a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. Though the burden to prove the defect is on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint the precise nature of defects or its cause or source. The warranty which is given for a product is a warranty for whole of the product and when it is found that the product does not perform properly the warranty would be taken to have been breached even if no individual part could be identified as defective. A Consumer Forum has however, to take into consideration consumer state of mind as well.  After all consumer had invested in the new product to buy peace of mind hoping that the same is dependable and trouble free.

5.                Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case as well as report of the Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the defective LED with new one of the same prize and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- in lumpsum subject to returning the LED alongwith its component to the OPs by the complainant.  Order of this forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the opposite parties under Section 25/27 of the Act.   Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance. 

Announced on :20.12.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

                                                                          (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)