BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 115 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 19.04.2017

                                                          Date of decision    : 05.06.2018

Smt. Beena w/o Shri Manoj Kumar, resident of House No.169, resident of village Singhawala, near Durga Mandir, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

1.  Chawla Electronics through its Prop. Court Road, near Manav Chowk, Ambala City.

2.  Sony India Pvt. Ltd Registered office: A-3, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Present:        Sh. P.S.Sandhu, counsel for complainant.

 Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, counsel for Ops.

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant has purchased LCD TV Company Sony, Model 32R412B Serial No.3252128 from the OP No.1 vide receipt bearing no.3458 dated 29.04.2016 for Rs.28,000/- and the complainant has already paid more than Rs.14,000/- to the OP and balance amount is still to be paid by the complainant and there was guarantee for one year from the date  of purchase of the said LCD TV as per guarantee given by the OP No.2. The said LCD TV is not giving proper picture and there is some defect in the said LCD TV from the very beginning and the complainant has been complaining the OP No.1 and requesting the OP No.1 to remove the defect, but OP No.1 neither changing the same with new one nor repairing the same inspite of repeated requests of the complainant. The complainant also served the OP No.1 with a registered/AD legal notice dated 31.03.2017. Because of the attitude of OPs, complainant has to harass and suffered mental, physical and monetary loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice, OP Nos.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that after purchasing  the said LED, the complainant for the very first time approached the service center on 07.05.2016 raising an issue with the panel of  the said LED. The service center without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the LED. Upon inspection it was observed that there were deep scratches on the panel. It was clearly observed by the service engineer at the time of the inspection that the scratch in the LED was self induced scratch by the complainant or can say due to the negligence of the complainant. The complainant’s negligent handling resulted in the development of scratch on the LED. Due to the physically damaged condition of the LED, the warranty stands void as per warranty policy. Hence, the service center shared an estimated cost of repairing the LED. However, the estimate shared by the service center was straightaway rejected by the complainant. 7  months later  the complainant again approached the service center 10.12.2016 raising an issue of “bright spot” shown  on display  and at a place the there was a deep scratch  observed by the service engineer on the previous visit. The warranty in such a scenario stands void as per warranty policy. The service center again shared an estimated cost of repairing the LED. But  he again refused to go for any chargeable service center. After 3 months the complainant again approached the service centre on 22.03.2017 raising an issue of “NO power & No LED glowing” in the said LED. The service engineer has already inspected the LED twice and gave a reasoning that the damage occurred to the LED was a self induced damage on the part of complainant or can say due to the negligence of the complainant. The Ops in such a scenario cannot be held liable in any way. The cause of damage was entirely external in nature and that’s the reason an estimated cost of repairing the LED was shared with the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-6 and close her evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-6 and close their evidence.

4.                We have heard both the counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is proved on the file that complainant had purchased LCD TV from the OP No.1 vide receipt dated 29.04.2016 for amounting Rs. 28,000/-as per Annexure C-1. The complainant has mentioned in her complaint she paid Rs.14,000/- to OP No.1 and balance is still to be paid to  OP No.2. The main grievance of the complainant in this case that the above said LED was not giving proper picture and there is some defect in the said LCD TV from very beginning and complainant approached to the OP No.1 for removal of  the above said defect but they did not rectified the above said defect. During the arguments this Forum has directed to the complainant to produce the LED TV in the Forum and same was brought by the complainant and Sh. Udai Singh Chauhan, Advocate who was present in the Forum and he was directed to give the report regarding whether LED TV having any manufacturing defect or not and Sh. Udai Singh Chauhan, Advocate inspected the LED in the presence of the counsels of both parties as well as in the presence of complainant. The LC report as under:

I, Udai Sing Chauhan, Advocate, District Court, Ambala have been appointed as a Local Commissioner   for physical inspection of LED TV, make Sony in the court room itself  as the complainant has brought the LED in the court  room for its physical inspection. In compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Forum, the undersigned obtained the copy of its Invoice/Bill No. 9458 dt. 29.04.2016 of M/s Chawla Electronics, Ambala City to compare its serial number with the LED, I have found the same number which is mentioned in the invoice i.e. Model No.KLV-32R412B and serial No.3552128, on the basis of which it can be safely ascertain that the LED in question is the same LED which was purchased by the complainant.

As per the invoice and its warranty card, the LED in question  was under the warranty between the period of 29.04.2016 to 28.04.2017, the undersigned inspected  the LED TV in the presence of complainant  and her counsel but none was present on behalf of Ops despite  knowingly well the case was pending in the court on 29.05.2018 and the complainant has brought the LED for physical inspection but for giving impartial report, I had gone through the written statement filed by the Ops, and by considering  their objection raised in their reply, I inspected  the LED, During the inspection I tried to switch  the LED TC on by putting its plug in the switch board but there was no indication whether power supply of the LED is working or not and even there was no display on the screen at the time when it was switched on,  During my inspection I have not found  any physical damage or deep scratch of any kind on LED in question as alleged by Ops in their written statement, which is evident from the photographs which were clicked from all Angle at the time of its Inspection and he also attached the photographs of the LED TV.

On the basis of my inspection and content of the complaint it is established that LED in question suffered from manufacture defect that is why it is not displaying anything and even not showing any Power supply”.

5.                In view of the above said report the Ops have not filed any objection on the report. LC has mentioned in his report that there is manufactured defect in the LED and it is not displaying anything even not showing any power supply. The report of Local Commissioner clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as they have sold  the defective LED  TV to the complainant.

6.                It is undisputed that the complainant had paid Rs.14000/- only as part payment of LED due to which she is not entitled for replacement of the said LED. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be accepted with the following directions to the OPs as under:-

(i)      To refund the amount Rs.14,000/- which was paid by the complainant at the time of purchase alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization subject to returning the LED TV in question alongwith its accessories by the complainant to the OPs.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony & harassment

(iii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- on account of cost of litigation.

                    Ops are directed to comply with the above said directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 Announced on : 05.06.2018

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                        (D.N. ARORA)

Member                                     President