DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 10/2014
D.No.____________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHIVAM CHHABRA,
S/o SH. TILAK RAJ CHHABRA,
R/o H. No. 275,BHAI PARMANAND COLONY (EAST),
DELHI-110009. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s HARISHARAN & SONS,
14-A, KAMLA NAGAR, OPP.-BIRLA MILLS,
DELHI-110007.
2. JOLLY ELECTRONICS WORLD,
I-177, KARAM PURA, DELHI-110015.
3. M/s HI-END SOLUTIONS,
E-235-A, MAIN ROAD, SHASTRI NAGAR,
DELHI-110052.
4. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,
NEW DELHI.… OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 02.01.2014
Date of decision:20.07.2018
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPsunder section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby
CC No. 10/2014 Page 1 of 8
alleging that the complainant purchased a Sony LCD television model no. KLV40S200A/TH6 on 03.01.2008 from OP-1 vide bill no. 30736 and book no. 108 for Rs.71,500/-. The complainant further alleged that from the very beginning the television set was having some manufacturing defect hence the complainant approached OP-1 for the repair of the television but when OP-1 failed to cure the fault, OP-1 advised the complainant to approach OP-2. Thereafter, OP-2 could not resolve the problem and the complainant approached OP-3 who informed that the model was discontinued and OPs could not do anything about it and the complainant had no option but to approach OP-4 and OP-4 kept the complainant waiting again and again and did not respond at all and OPs just kept transferring calls from one executive to other without a proper solution. The complainant further alleged that as per advise of OP-1, the complainant approached OP-2 and deposited his television set for repair on 18.09.2011 vide job sheet no. 10924054, on 26.12.2011 vide job sheet no. WS101149611122900766 and thereafter the complainant approached OP-3 on 03.11.2012 vide job sheet no. J21353803, on 15.11.2012 vide job sheet no. 009101298512111501095, on 16.12.2012, 02.07.2013, 05.07.2013 vide job sheet no. J31174932, on 26.10.2013 vide job sheet no. J32085710. The complainant further alleged that to get the television set cured the complainant also approached various
CC No. 10/2014 Page 2 of 8
officials of the OPs but the problem could not be resolved and on the contrary every time, OPs gave false and vague assurances to the complainant and even after the best efforts and the visits of the complainant and his father, OPs failed to rectify the manufacturing defects in the product. The complainant further alleged that the complainant has been cheated by the OPs as he has been provided with the defective television set after accepting huge amount of money from the complainant and the complainant accordingly alleged that the OPs action amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPsto refund the amount paid by the complainant for purchase of the LCD Television of Rs.71,500/-, as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension, agony and physical harassment.
3. The OPs have been contesting the case and filed reply and in thereply, OPs submitted that the complainant had purchased the Sony LCD Television bearing model no. KLV-40S200A on 03.01.2008 for a sum of Rs.71,500/- after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications by OP-1 and after satisfying himself with the condition of the LCD and OP-4 provides a warrantee of one year on its products from the date of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms & conditions of the
CC No. 10/2014 Page 3 of 8
warrantee provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warrantee and the relevant terms of warrantee provided by OP-1 to the complainant as follows:
“Clause (8): This warrantee shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening, ingress of water, fire and acts of god, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control and/or any damage caused due to the tempering of the product by an unauthorized agent.”
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to reply of OPs and denied the contentions of OPs.
5. In order to prove hiscase the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also filed copy of retail invoice book no. 108 dated 03.01.2008 for purchase of Sony LCD TV of Rs.71,500/- issued by OP-1 and copies of service job sheet no. 10924054 on 18.09.2011 issued by OP-4, no. 0091011496 11122600577 on 26.12.2011 issued by OP-2, no. J21353803 on 03.11.2012, no. J21480475 on 16.11.2012, no. nil on 16.12.2012, no. nil on 02.07.2013, no. J31174932 on 05.07.2013, no. J32085710 on 26.10.2013 & no. nil on 02.07.2013 issued by OP-3.
6. On the other hand on behalf of OPs Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, Executive of OP-4 filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the reply of OPs. On behalf of OPs Sh. Bhupender Kumar Singh, Executive of OP-4 also filed his additional affidavit in evidence.The
CC No. 10/2014 Page 4 of 8
witnesses of OP-4 stated that the complainant approached the service of the company for the first time in the year-2011 i.e. after almost 4 years after the purchase of LCD TV and after lapse of warrantee. These witnesses in their affidavits further stated that the service engineer of the company duly rendered services on 18.09.2011, 26.12.2011, 03.11.2012 & 15.11.2012 and the official’s of OP have always attended the complaints of the complainant and in fact the last service being on 15.11.2012 was rendered free of cost. Sh. Bhupender Kumar Singh, Executive of the company further stated that on 27.02.2014, the service engineer of the company visited the residence of the complainant but the wife of the complainant did not allow the service engineer to inspect the said LCD TV. This witness further stated that the company made bonafide offer to settle the dispute by offering new TV to the complainant at discounted rates but the complainant is not interested in resolving the dispute. OPs have also filed written arguments.
7. Before we come to the case and facts let us state that the electronic machines and devices are meant to make the lives of the consumers happy &easier. The product is required to be free from any sort of defect and if there is any defect in the product the consumer needs to be compensated. In this regard it would be of benefit to note the following judgment:-
CC No. 10/2014 Page 5 of 8
In case titled Col. Ravinder Pal Brar Vs. Asian Motors, FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007, the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“The disputes between the consumer and the service providers and traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders and manufactures to refund the cost of the goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumers, cannot be ruled out and in that case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation.”
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OPs in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. OPs have admitted that the complainant has complained about problem/defect in LCD TV very frequently though after expiry of period of warrantee of one year. The warrantee period of one year is not disputed by the complainant. The LCD TV which was purchased by the complainant was costing Rs.71,500/-. Thus, it is not understood that the life such a costly LCD TV will be one year or so. Admittedly the LCD TV was purchased vide retail invoice dated 03.01.2008 and the 1st complaint was made by the complainant about problem in LCD TV on 18.09.2011 i.e. after a period of 3 ½ year from the date of purchase the LCD TV.
9. Though OPs have tried to rectify the defect which has occurred in the LCD TV but the defects have not been removed/corrected and
CC No. 10/2014 Page 6 of 8
the problem in the LCD TV has not been removed. It was the duty ofthe OPs to rectify the defect or to replace the product. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaint in respect of a new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defects in the product which is a branded LCD TV of a world fame manufacturer. It is not expected that a customer/complainant would have purchased LCD TV for a period of 1 year or so only. The complainant is justified in not accepting the new TV at a discounted price and similarly there is no merits in the defence of the OPs that the wife of the complainant refused the service engineer to inspect the LCD TV on 27.02.2014 as it has come on record that the LCD TV of the complainant is not repairable as its spare parts are not available with the manufacturer as the production of the said model of LCD TV has been discontinued by the company.It is not disputed by the complainant that he has enjoyed the LCD TV for a period of more than 3 ½ years.
10. In the light of above discussion, OP-4is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and OP-4 is directed as under: -
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.37,000/- being the depreciated price @ 20% per year on return of the defective LCD TV.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- as
CC No. 10/2014 Page 7 of 8
compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes litigation cost.
11. The above amount shall be paid by OP-4 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-4shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-4 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 20thday of July, 2018.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K.GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MENBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 10/2014 Page 8 of 8
