Delhi

East Delhi

CC/568/2014

SUNIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.B.M - Opp.Party(s)

19 Aug 2014

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.568/14

SUNIL KUMAR

S/O Sh. RAM JATAN,

R/O S-440, SCHOOL BLOCK

SHAKARPUR DELHI-110092

•  

 

•  

 

1. KBM ELECTRONICS

1/32, MAIN VIKAS MARG LALITA PARK

LAXMI NAGAR DELHI-110092

 

 

2. SONY INDIA Pvt. Ltd.

A-31 MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL EXTATE

MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI

 

                                                                                                                                                  ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 23.06.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 31.08.2018

Judgment Passed on: 06.09.2018

 

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by Shri Sunil Kumar (Complainant) against KBM Electronics (OP-1) and Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) with allegations of deficiency in services.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 29.04.2014, the complainant had purchased one SONY LED TV 32 R 402 vide invoice No. C-00983/14-15 from OP-1. It has been stated that the product manufactured by OP-2 was defective from the beginning as there was problem with Mother Board. Complainant has stated that a complaint No. 1888116 was issued for complaint made on 04.05.2014 to OP-2. Engineer of OP-2 informed the complainant that the Mother Board of the LED TV was defective, which was neither repaired nor replaced. Again on 02.06.2014 complaint was registered vide complaint no. 19344713, but no action was taken. The complainant has stated that complainant has been deprived from enjoying the use of TV, which has caused mental agony and pain. Feeling aggrieved, hence, the present complaint with prayer for directing OPs to jointly/severally refund the cost of TV i.e. Rs.28,900/-, compensation for mental agony and pain as Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.

The complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 29.04.2014 issued by OP-1.

3. The complaint was dismissed at the admission stage on 19.08.2014, but was remanded back by the Hon’ble State Commission with directions to be heard afresh.
4. Thereafter, notice was issued to OP-1 and OP-2, who filed their reply and submitted that LED was purchased by the complainant after detailed demonstration of features and functions with limited warranty of one year from the date of purchase. It was admitted that the complainant had approached OP-1 with complaint “No Power” in the said LED, which was immediately addressed, but the complainant demanded replacement and refused to get it repaired. It was further submitted that complainant did not let OP-1 inspect the LED, which was necessary in order to assess the problem and the complainant even refused to go for any alternative offer. OP-1 has submitted that they are ready to provide free of cost repairs and also offered the replacement with new model KLV-32R41213, where complainant was only required to pay Rs.2000/- i.e. the difference between the MRP of model, which was declined by the complainant. It was also submitted that thereafter complainant never visited OP-2 with regard to any issue with LED and the present complaint had been filed after 2 years. Rest of the contents of the complaint has also been denied.

Copy of resolution dated 04.07.2011, copy of standard warranty terms and conditions, letter dated 20.04.2017 written by OP to the complainant have been annexed with the reply.

5. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by OPs was filed on behalf of the complainant where the contents of the written statement were denied. It was submitted that no offer was made by OP and even receipt of letter of offer dated 20.04.2017 was denied.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where the complainant has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and has got exhibited the receipt invoice                              no. C-00983/14-15 from the show room as Ex.CW1/1.

However, no evidence was filed by OPs despite several opportunities, and subsequently they stopped appearing, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte on 02.08.2018.

7. We have perused the material placed on record and have heard the submissions on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that there was problem with the LED manufactured by OP-2 within days of purchase, which is an admitted fact, prompt redressal of the same was also done by OP. The present complaint was instituted on 23.06.2014, which is within two months of purchase. OP has placed on record their letter of offer dated 20.04.2017, however they have failed to place on record any proof of delivery of the same, this seems to be an afterthought. We direct OP to replace the LED model owned by complainant with offered model i.e. KLV-32RY1213 free of cost. We also award Rs.8,500/- as compensation  for metal agony and harassment, this amount is inclusive of litigation expenses. The said order be complied within 30 days, else, Rs.8,500/- shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.  

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

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

      MEMBER                                                                                                    MEMBER

 

                                                      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                                    PRESIDENT