DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK
Dated the 13th day of january, 2021
C.D Case No. 18 of 2019
Present:-
1. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Presiding member
2. Afsara Begum, Member
MANORAMA MUKHI
W/O Late Rajendra Giri
Vill/Po/Ps- Dhamnagar
Dist- Bhadrak (R)
.................Petitioner
(Versus)
01.Manager of SONY INDIA Pvt. Ltd.
A-18 , Mohan Co- Operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
02. Proprietor of M/S PRIME ELECTRONICS
At- Bypass, Po/Ps/District- Bhadrak.Odisha.
03. The Proprietor,
SHREE LAXMI SERVICES,
At- Padhanpada , Bidyut Marg,
District- Balasore- 756001.
………………… Opp. Parties.
Counsel for Complainant: Mr. Gopinath Dash & Associates, Advocates
Counsel for all O.Ps: Ex: Parte
Date of hearing: 18.02.2020
Date of order: 13.01.2021
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK,PRESIDING MEMBER .
This dispute arose out of a complaint petition filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant had purchased a SONY MHC-V21D Hi-Fi of S N - 3515212 Model AUDIO device, from OP No. 2 on payment of Rs 17,900/- in cash with official warranty of complete one year from the date of purchase i:e 13.10.2018. The said device was functioning smoothly without any defect till 06.02.2019. After 06.02.2019 it could not possible to play smoothly due to some internal defects. So the complainant approached O.P No.2 to set right/correct the problem. O.P No.2 advised the complainant to bring the fact to the notice of O.P No.3 . Therefore the complainant with her son brought to the notice of O.P No.3 about the defect of the device. On 02.03.2019 the authorized agent of O.P No.3 received the documents from complainant and returned the same on 22.03.2019 with the remarks that the blue tooth is defect in the device. While returning of documents authorized agent of O.P No.3 showed on the device that the present device code & model is “1KJ41VZh Hhn ABOMZQ-601S AAAAABF BbMRYb2 LKU2hhCMVfNZA5NW==” the previous device/Model name was “MHC-V21D”. According to the authorized person the previous device was defective one so that this Model was substituted to run the device. He also disclosed that the defect will not be removed permanently. There after two weeks of use of the device same problems along with other problems were detected and the device became totally defunct. Thereafter on several occasions complainant approached the O.Ps and finally finding no other way to get the service from OPs, has preferred this dispute praying for a direction against the O.Ps to refund the cost of the HI-Fi device with compensation and cost.
Notices were issued to O.Ps on registered Post for appearance and filing of written version. Instead of appearing in this commission by O.P No. 1 only has issued a letter to complainant with a memo to this office . Which is as follows:-
“ Subject : Court Notice bearing CC No.28/2019 From Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhadrak.
Dear Mrs. Manorama Mukhi,
This is in reference to your notice regarding your Sony Audia Model MHC-V2ID/M serial no.3515212 purchased on 30th October 2018.
We received service request at our Authorized service center M/S Sree Laxmi Services, Balasore vide Job No. J90455360 dated 30th March 2019 with symptom- Bluetooth not pairing. Upon inspection of the product by our engineer, the Main Board was replaced to service the product. The set was duly rectified and delivered to you in April 2019.
Please not that we do not have any service request registered for your Audio after this repair. In case there is any other concern in your set, we request you to provide us a convenient date and time so that our service engineer can Visit your residence for necessary inspection and service. Without inspectioning the set , we are unable to provide any resolution. We solicit your kind understanding in this regard.
Should you wish to reach us directly, kindly connect with our Branch Service in charge Mr. Venkatesh Tatina at +91 9550456565,.
Thanking and assuring you of our best service and support always.
With Warm Regards,
For Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
Deepa Raisinghani
Regional Customer Relation-East
Kolkata.
CC. The Bench Clerk, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, kachery Bazar, Bhadrak, Odisha- 756100. “
This shows that the court notice is within the knowledge of the O.P No.1 and O.P No.1 has no mind to proceed with the case. As such due to non appearance and for non filing of w/v by O.P No.1 was set ex- Parte.
Op. No.2 did not respond to the court notice as such was set ex-parte.
O.P No.3 had appeared in person on 31.05.2015 and had filed a petition praying for time to file w/v. After that he was absent in the Court as such he was also set ex- parte.
The complainant, in course of hearing, contented in stating that the defect which is mentioned in the complaint is within the warranty period and the Audio device repaired in the warranty period. The products of OP No. 1 are required to be repaired whenever it is necessary and the customers will avail service from the authorized service provider of the company and the authorized service centre is bound to provide service to the customers and not providing service by the authorized service centre will certainly tantamount to deficiency of service. Instead of attending to the grievance of complainant and filing of objection in the CC Case, O.P No.1 company remained silent by filing a letter to complainant. It is observed from the letter of O.P No.1 that the entire submission are revolving around the warranty period and with the period of free service . It is decided in the a decision of State C.D.R Commission, Andaman & Nicober Islands in Appeal Case No. 06 of 2015 which was decided on 10.01.2017 between P.M. Jose Vrs The Manager, M/S Techmech.. wherein it is decided that if the service not provided, whether free or paid service, according to the requirement of the customer, as and when necessary by the authorized service centre of manufacturer of product it would be held that there is deficiency of service and the O.Ps involved in the process are liable to pay compensation and bound to provide service to the customer within a limited period of time.
In view of the above discussions and scrutiny of relevant materials of record it is held that the O.Ps have grossly neglected in their legitimate performances in providing service to the complainant within the assured time limit amounts to deficiency of service and O.Ps are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment. Hence it ordered;
ORDER
In the result, the present complaint be and the same is allowed ex- parte against the Ops No. 1 & 2 . OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to refund the cost of the Audio device amounting to Rs.17,900/- or give a brand new device of same brand within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 9% shall be charged over and above the amount from the date of order to the date of payment. In addition to that OP No. 1 & 2 have to pay Rs 2,000/- as cost of litigation.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 13th January, 2021 under my hand and the seal of the Commission.
