DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th day March, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of filing: 25/11/2021 

CC/205/2021

P. Krishnadas

S/o Late Pankunni Nair

Pallippurath House

Thalayanakkad

Kattukulam South P.O.

Palakkad – 678 514                                             -            Complainant

(Party in person) 

Vs

1.   M/s Das Agencies

7/10, College Road

Palakkad – 678 001

2.   Sony Authorised Service Centre

1^st Floor, Sakthi Complex

Coimbatore Road

Kalmandapam

Palakkad - 678 001

3.   Sony India Pvt. Ltd

Second Floor, Muscat Tower

SA Road

Kadavanthra, Ernakulam – 682 020                    -          Opposite parties 

(Opposite parties by Adv. M.J.Vince)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.

1.  Pleadings of the Complainant.

The complainant purchased a Sony LED TV from the first opposite party on 02/05/2014 for Rs. 62,500/- On 03/08/2021, the TV developed some complaints and he informed the first opposite party.  The service personnel from second opposite party examined the TV and informed that the spare for repairing is not available, since the TV is very old.  Hence, the first opposite party offered him a new TV under exchange scheme at a discount of 30%.  According to the complainant, he purchased Sony TV only because his confidence in the brand and the dealer had assured that repair facilities will be available upto 10 years.  He was using the same brand TV for 12 years from 2002 to 2014 till it got damaged due to lighting.  Hence the incapability of the opposite parties to repair the TV is deficiency in service and hence he approached this Commission seeking order for repairing the TV or a total relief of Rs. 73,500/- towards the cost of new TV, compensation for mental agony, cost etc.

2.   Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  They entered appearance and filed joint version.  Their contention is that the TV in question is 7 years old and the display panel that is required for repairing the TV costing Rs. 20,896/- is not easily available in the market and if at all available the cost has to be borne by the complainant.  Hence, the opposite parties offered to exchange the TV with a new one at a discounted rate.  But the complainant was not willing for this option.

3.  Issues involved

1. Whether, in the facts & circumstances of the case, the complainant is entitled to get the TV free of cost after the warranty period is over?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs as to cost & compensation.

4.   The complainant did not file proof affidavit or mark any document as evidence.  The case was referred to adalath held on 30/09/2022 & 28/10/2022, but a settlement could be reached.

The complainant has been absent for the sittings on 25/11/2022, 09/12/2022, 23/01/2023, 20/02/2023 & 21/03/2023.  Hence the case was taken for orders based on merits.

5.  Issues 1 & 2

It is clear from the complaint pleadings that the TV in question is 7 years old and out of the warranty period.  Hence the complainant is not entitled for any free of cost repair as stated by the opposite parties.  So we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Further the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove otherwise.  Though the opposite parties offered a new TV in exchange of the old one, at a discounted rate it was not acceptable to him.  This offer is very reasonable one, because the cost of the part to be replaced is over Rs. 20,000/- and it has to be borne by the complainant as the warranty period is over.  Thus it can be concluded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

6.  Issues 3 & 4

The complaint is therefore dismissed and the complainant is not entitled to any relief.  Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Pronounced in open court on this the 28^th day of March, 2023.

                                                                                             Sd/-      

                                                                           Vinay Menon V

                                                    President 

                                                            Sd/-

                                                     Vidya A

                               Member

                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                 Krishnankutty N.K

                                                                                        Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant: Nil

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined: Nil

Cost: Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.