Orissa

Cuttak

CC/80/2014

Ashutosh Pattanaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Sony India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

N K Das

29 Dec 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.80/2014

 

            Asutosh Pattanaik,

At:Madhusudan Nagar,PO:Tulasipur,

P.S:Bidanasi,Dist:Cuttack..                                                    .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1.       Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,(Consumer Durable Product),

Represented through its Managing Director,

At:A-31,Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044.                         

 

2.      Vijay Sales,reperesented through its Authorized signatory,

At:K-II/25,Central Market,

Lajpatnagar,New Delhi-110024.

 

3.         Star Electronics, represented through its

Authorised signatory,At:B-3,C-Block,

Community Center,Narayana Bihar,

Near C-Block,Gurudwara,New Delhi.

 

4.         Shreejal Services,Plot No.2-03/2901 196/2977,

Unit-34,Sriram Nagar,New FM Complex,

Badambadi,Cuttack.                                                                        … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitrananda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   18.06.2014

Date of Order:  29.12.2017

 

For the complainant  :    Mr. N.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                :   Mr. R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant has lodged this complaint before this Hon’ble Forum against the O.Ps for redresssal of his grievances under the C.P.Act,1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint petition.  The allegation made in the complaint is with regard to deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by O.P.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Sony LCD TV from the O.P No.2 on 08.09.2012.  The warranty period of the TV set was for 12 months from the date of purchase.(Annexure-1).  In the month of July,2013 the purchased TV set showed defect as it was automatically getting switched off repeatedly once the same was switched on.  The complainant called on the toll free no. of O.P No.1 and after duly informing them about the problem sought their assistance in rectifying the problem.  He also followed the instructions as advised by the authorized representatives of O.P No.1.  Since the problem would not be rectified even after implementation of telephonic technical assistance, complainant again lodged a complaint on 23.07,2014 on the same toll free no.  After lodging of the complaint O.P No.1 assigned the O.P No.3 to attend the complaint.  The O.P No.3 deputed a service engineer on 27.7.13 but he could neither detect nor rectify the defects and took the TV set to the workshop.(Job card as Annexure-2).  After 10 to 15 days, the O.P returned back the TV set with assurance that the defects have been completely rectified and no further problem would occur in future.  At the time of delivery of the TV set, the complainant could not test the performance as his father was admitted in AIMS, New Delhi.  After discharge of his father the complainant when tested the TV set, he found the same problem still persists for which he requested the O.Ps to replace the TV set.  But the said complaint was neither attended nor was any correspondence made.  The complainant was transferred from Delhi to Odisha and he lodged a complaint with the O.Ps on 21.1.14 vide complaint no.17542426 and the service engineer deputed by O.P No.4 attended the complaint and opined that the defects are major and needs to be rectified at the service centre at the cost of the complainant.  The service engineer was updating about the previous facts by the complainant.  However he shall insisted that the cost needs to be borne by the complainant.  He also opined that it requires major replacement of faulty parts.  Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Forum praying for a direction to the O.Ps for  repairing of the TV set under warranty scheme without demanding any amount from the complainant towards repair of  T.V set and to pay  compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards harassment , mental agony and litigation expenses.
2. The O.Ps entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their joint written version.  The O.Ps have disputed the averments of the complainant.  O.Ps have stated that the Sony India Pvt. Ltd., the O.P.1 is engaged in business of distribution and marketing of various electronic items under the brand name of “Sony” and the products of the O.P NO.1 are sold to customers through a network of its authorized dealers and after sales services on those products through a network of its authorized service centre across the country.  The O.P No.1 provides a limited warranty on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with a terms and condition of the warranty provided by it.  The O.Ps stated that the complainant purchased a Sony LCD TV on 8.9.12 and approached the O.P NO.3 on 23.7.13 that is almost a year after using the LCD TV without any complaint.  The LCD TV was covered within the warranty provided by the O.P No.1 and necessary support was provided by the representatives of O.P No.3 by replacing the static converter board.  Subsequently the complainant contacted the O.P No.4 on 24.1.14 with similar complaint as made earlier.  Upon inspection of the LCD it was suspected that the B. Board was required to be replaced.  Since the LCD was not within warranty the complainant was offered a repair estimate of Rs.6,433/- to rectify the problem, the complainant refused to approve the repair estimate and insisted that the LCD was still within the warranty period.  Since the complainant was not willing to approve the repair estimate the repair work could not be carried out.

The O.Ps have also expressed their willingness to provide free of cost replacement of the necessary parts depending on availability of required parts as a special gesture towards the complainant.  The offer of free of cost repair is being made purely as a good will gesture and not to be construed as an admission of guilt by the O.Ps but the complainant will have to bear the standard service charges applicable in case of repair.  So the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. We have gone through the case records in details as filed by the parties.  We have also heard the learned advocates from both the sides.  We have observed that the O.Ps have admitted in  para-6 & 7 of their written version that the LCD TV was purchased on 8.9.12 and the complainant approached on 23.7.13. It was covered within the warranty period provided by the O.P No.1 and the O.P.3 has replaced the static converter board and subsequently it was suspected that the B Board was required to be replaced but the necessary repairs could not be carried out as the complainant refused to approve the repair estimate.  At the same time in para-12 of their written version, the O.Ps have expressed their willingness to provide free of cost replacement of necessary parts.  From the above admissions, it clearly shows that the LCD TV developed defect during warranty period and the same was duly repaired by O.P No.3.  Later on it developed same problem.  The complainant lodged complaint again on 21.01.2014 vide complaint No.17542426 and such complaint was lodged after the warranty period but the O.Ps have not told anything regarding the complaint lodged by the complainant on 24.08.2013 vide complaint No.15369200.  Since O.Ps have not denied such a complaint lodged by the complainant on 24.08.2013.  We conclude that the complaint was duly lodged on 24.08.2013 by the complainant and said complaint was well within the warranty period.  Hence the O.ps are found deficient in service.

 

ORDER

Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, the O.Ps will repair the TV free of cost.  The O.Ps will also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony.  No further order towards cost of litigation.

                Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 29^th  day of December,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                                            Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                                                  President.

                                                                                                                             (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                  Member.