1. Sri DibyajyotI Datta,

            393,Dum Dum Park,

            P.S. Lake Town, Kolkata-55.                                                                             _________Complainant

____Versus____

1. Manager / Authorized Officer representing         

            Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

            White House, (2^nd Floor), 119, Park Street,

            P.S. Park Street,  Kolkata-16.                     

1. Manager / Authorized Person representing

Sales Emporium (WLG),

85D, Ultadanga Main Road,

P.S. Untadanga, Kolkata-67.                                                                         ________ Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.  15     Dated  29-12-2014.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a Sony LCD 40” Colour TV on 16.3.11 by paying Rs.50,000/- from o.p. no.2. Complainant has stated that within warranty period the lines appeared on the picture with occasional complete back out. First the complainant enquired about the telecast system and subsequently he realized that the defect was in the TV set itself. Accordingly, complainant lodged a complaint vide no.10074990 with o.p. no.1. The set was repaired and delivered on 28.5.12 vide job no.J 20263397 dt.17.5.12 and o.p. charged Rs.1400/- and complainant paid the sum of Rs.1400/- on protest. Thereafter again some problems cropped up in the said T.V. and another complaint was lodged on 18.7.12 vide complaint no.10693229 and subsequently the third complaint was lodged and the revised complaint lodged on 10.10.12 vide no.11548217. O.p. has inspected the defected set and without testing they gave an estimate of Rs.6858/- for repairing. On 7.11.12 complaiannt sent a letter to o.p. no.1 and requested them to replace the defected set. O.p. no.1 replied to that letter on 17.11.12 declining the request of replacement. So complainant filed the instant case with prayer for refund of the purchase amount of Rs.50,000/- along with compensation  and cost.

            O.p. no.1 appeared before the Forum and filed w/v. O.p. no.2 did not turn up before the Forum and as such, matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.2.

            In their w/v o.p. no.1 has stated that on inspection by their engineer they found that the ‘B’ board needs to be replaced to restore the set back to the normal condition. Since the set has crossed its warranty period on 15.3.12 and the complaint was lodged on 6.10.12 an estimate for servicing of the product was given to the tune of Rs.6858/-. Complainant denied to pay the amount. Then they have revised the estimate and finally gave the cost of repair to the tune of Rs.3994/- as a special gesture and they have also assured the complainant that after repair they would provide 3 months warranty. As the warranty period has been expired they have charged the amount so there is no deficiency in service on their part. So the case is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant has purchased a Sony Bravia LCD 40” Colour TV on 16.3.11 by paying Rs.50,000/- from o.p. no.2. The product had one year warranty. Complainant has lodged his first complaint just after expiry of the warranty period. Complainant has paid Rs.1400/- for the service as he has lodged his complaint after the expiry of warranty period. Complainant has paid the sum of Rs.1400/- on protest. But subsequently after a short period the TV set got defective and accordingly, complainant lodged his complaint on 18.7.12 and 10.10.12. O.p. company has charged repairing cost of Rs.6858/-. But thereafter they have offered a discount for servicing and the amount was estimated Rs.4893/- (the letter was given by o.p. no.1 on 16.5.13 to the complainant) and three months warranty. But complainant has denied that service. O.p. has estimated the charge for repairing as the complaint was lodged beyond the warranty period of the TV set in question. Moreover, o.p. no.1 has reduced the estimated amount of repairing charge as a good gesture. So, we find no deficiency on their part.

            O.p. no.2 is a dealer of o.p. no.1 and they only sold the TV set in question. They have supplied the set as per order. Complainant had not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.2. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.2.  As such, complainant has failed to prove the case and accordingly, he is not entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest against the o.p. no.1 and ex parte against o.p. no.2 without cost.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.