West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/162/2015

Mahasina Khatoon, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Sony India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

23 Apr 2018

ORDER

Shri Biswa Nath Konar,  President.

            The case of the complainant Mahasina Khatoon, in brief, is that she purchased a Sony LED TV at a price of Rs. 32900/- from the O.P No. 1 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi through O.P No. 2. Rahul International.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the said TV has not been working properly since beginning and she informed the O.P No. 1 and 2 but in vain. She also informed both the O.Ps time and again but no consequence. He lodged first complaint on 21.10.12 within warrantee period but none visit her house.

            It is the next case of the complainant that lastly after long time the O.Ps sent a technician to her house who, opined that LED screen was required to be changed and price of the same was to be borne by her.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the O.Ps have intentionally taken no steps regarding defective TV in due time and the technician opined that there was defect in LED screen which amounts to manufacturing defect of the TV and the act of the O.Ps is nothing but deficiency in service and illegal trade practice.

            Hence, this case for directing the O.Ps to replace a new defect free TV or to pay Rs. 32900/- with 15% interest per annum and compensation of Rs. 100 per dim with other reliefs.

            The O.P No.1 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no locus standi to file this case.

            It is the specific case of the O.P No.1 that in the present case the complainant alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the TV in question. So, she is to prove that there was manufacturing defect of the same. But the complainant has failed to produce any expert report regarding manufacturing defect of the same.

            It is the further case of the O.P No.1 that they sent reply against legal notice sent by the complainant alleging that it was not possible to provide any service request to the complainant without Model No., Sl. No. and any job sheet of the product. However, they are more than willing to repair the said product, if the complainant approached so.

            Ultimately the O.P No.1 prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

            O.P No.2 Rahul International inspite of due service of notice has not turned up and the case was heard ex parte against them.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Mahasina Khatoon has been examined as PW1 and also filed some documents. She was also cross examined by the O.P  No.1.

One Soumya Basu, Officer of Sony TV has been examined as OPW 1.

 Heard argument both sides.

Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant purchased a Sony LED TV at a price of Rs. 32900/- from the O.P No. 1 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi through O.P No. 2. Rahul International.

So, the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:: O.P No. 2 has Office within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 37900/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that she purchased a Sony LED TV at a price of Rs. 32900/- from the O.P No. 1 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi through O.P No. 2. Rahul International.

            Copy of road challan dated 21.10.2012 issued by O.P No.2 Rahul International shows that the complainant purchased a Sony 32 LED TV from O.P No.2.

            Copy of warranty card shows that one year warranty was given in respect of the said TV from the date of purchase.

            The complainant further stated that the said TV has not been working properly since beginning and she informed the O.P No. 1 and 2 but in vain. She also informed both the O.Ps time and again but no consequence. He lodged first complaint on 21.10.12 within warrantee period but none visit her house and lastly after long time the O.Ps sent a technician to her house who, opined that LED screen was required to be changed and price of the same was to be borne by her. The O.Ps have intentionally taken no steps regarding defective TV in due time and the technician opined that there was defect in LED screen which amounts to manufacturing defect of the TV and the act of the O.Ps is nothing but deficiency in service and illegal trade practice.

            Copy of the Service Job Card shows that the said TV was examined by one technician.

            We find that it is the case of the O.P No.1 that in the present case the complainant alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the TV in question. So, she is to prove that there was manufacturing defect of the same. But the complainant has failed to produce any expert report regarding manufacturing defect of the same.

            Certainly onus is upon the complainant to prove manufacturing defect of the goods and the complainant has failed to submit any report of any expert.

            So, it can be safely said that the complainant has failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the said TV.

            It is the further case of the O.P No.1 that it was not possible for them to provide any service request to the complainant without Model No., Sl. No. and Job Sheet of the product.

            However from the copy of Service of Job Sheet we find that once one technician of the O.P No.2 has examined the TV in question. But it is very peculiar to note that said job sheet provides no date. Note in the column regarding customer complaint is totally illegible. There is also no such clear note that actually which defect was found by such technician. However on the basis of said Service Job Card it can be concluded that there was complaint from the complainant regarding defect of TV and said technician/Engineer examined said TV to sort out the problem. So, it may be said that the O.Ps were aware about defect in TV.

            However, in his cross examination OPW1 Soumya Basu, Officer of the O.P No.1 and W/V filed by the O.P No.1 they admitted that they are ready to repair the defect of TV.

            Certainly the O.Ps being Manufacturer and Dealer are duty bound to repair their product within warranty period without costs and beyond warranty period with costs.

            But in the present case the O.Ps have failed to repair TV effectively which amounts to deficiency in service.

            Considering the overall mater into consideration, evidence on record and the report of the Technician/Service Engineer we think ends of justice would be met up if the O.Ps are directed to repair TV effectively and to pay compensation of Rs. 1000/- as token for deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled to get any other relief.

Accordingly both these points decided in favour of the complainant. Case succeeds in part.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 162/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P No.1 with cost of Rs. 2000/- and ex parte against the O.P No.2 without any cost in part.

            The O.Ps are directed jointly and severally to repair TV in question of the complainant effectively and to pay compensation of Rs. 1000/- as token to the complainant.

All such payment and repair be made to the complainant by the O.Ps within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.