Delhi

North East

CC/368/2016

MOHD. NAEIN KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 368/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mohd Naiem Khan S/o Mohd Tanawwer Khan R/o H. No. Z-11/593, J.J. Colony, North East District, Delhi-53.	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.         3.	M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd Through Manager / H.O.D At its registered office:- A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-44.   Gupta Electronic 16-17 Through its proprietor At 1/1551, West Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32.   M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd Through its Manager/HOD Regd. Office at G-Plaza Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-4110006.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                DATE OF DECISION      :

28.12.2016 09.04.2018 11.04.2018

 

 

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant stating that he had purchased a LED KDL43 W800 D of Sony Company (OP1) from OP2 on 09.09.2016 for an amount of Rs. 63,000/- vide invoice               No. 2806 with warranty of one year valid up to July 2017 as printed in the warranty card/demo service coupon. The complainant got this warranty extended by two years from 09.09.2017 to 08.09.2019 vide policy no. OG-17-1000-6609-00492331 taken from OP3 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company) for an amount of Rs. 4,451/- on the same day of purchase. It has been reported by the complainant that on 09.09.2016 the employee of OP2 visited his house to install the aforesaid LED but refused to show the demonstration of the aforesaid LED with an assurance that this would be done within 2 days but they did not visit his house and as such he lodged a complaint with customer care, who also assured to send the mechanic but all this went in vain. It has been further reported that after two days of purchase, the OP1 visited the house of complainant to show the demonstration of the said LED but failed and the executive that the superior mechanic would be sent to check the said LED. Regular complaints were made by the complainant on 28.10.2016, 05.11.2016, 10,11,2016, 14.11.2016 and 25.11.2016 telephonically to the OPs but the OPs did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant has stated that after making the complaint on 30.11.2016 the executive of OP1 visited and found that the LED was not in working condition and assured to come with superior mechanic but nobody visited the house of the complainant or changed the above said LED. The complainant has submitted that he had personally visited the office of OP2 and requested to replace the said LED but no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant. As such, the complainant is feeling cheated with the conduct of OPs who had given false assurances as he had invested Rs. 63,000/- for the above said LED for the happiness of his family members but could not utilize the said LED due to which he felt embarrassment and lost his prestige and as such is suffering mental agony. Thereafter complainant is constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum and has prayed for directions to OPs to either change the said LED and refund its price of Rs. 63,000/-. The complainant has also prayed for directions to OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

Complainant has annexed a copy of retail invoice no. 2806 dated 09.09.2016 towards the purchase of LED for an amount of Rs. 63,000/-, copy of warranty card from Sony for a period of one year from the date of purchase, copy of extended warranty policy schedule for a period of 2 years from 9^th September 2017 to 8^th September 2019 from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. Notice was issued upon OPs on 17.01.2017 for appearance on 09.02.2017. OP1 and OP2 failed to appear despite service and repeated opportunities and as such were proceeded against ex-parte on 27.04.2017. On 10.04.2017 OP3 filed its written statement. In its written statement OP3, while admitting to the complainant having taking the extended insurance policy from OP3 with respect to the said LED Tv, took the plea that the allegation of deficiency by the complainant is on the part of manufacturer/ dealer for not providing with the guarantee / promise made by them and not against the OP3 since the extended policy warranty becomes effective only after expire of one year manufacturing warranty giving by manufacturer/dealer i.e. OP1 and OP2  and the provisions of the extended warranty policy taken by complainant from OP3 are effective from 09.09.2017 till 08.09.2019 when the period of manufacturing warranty expires after one year and therefore not attracted at the relevant time of dispute in the present case. Since the complaint is regarding the deficiency caused right from date of purchase of the LED on 09.09.2016 and as such OP3 has prayed that his name should be deleted from the array of parties. The OP3 further took the objection that the complainant has not filed any claim against OP3 and nor has OP3 repudiated claim of the complainant and therefore no cause of action accrues to the complainant against OP3. The OP3 further stated took the defence that the said extended warranty period does not come into picture and the complaint of deficiency of service, harassment and cheating by the complainant is on OP1 and OP2 and not on OP3 and therefore the present complaint does not concerned OP3 and prayed for deletion of its name from the array of OPs.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant wherein he denied all the allegations made by OP3 and stated that OP3 is liable to pay the insured amount to complainant as he had taken Rs. 4,451/- as premium for the warranty of the LED TV.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit were filed by both OP3 and the complainant wherein they reiterated the points made in the written statement and complaint.
5. Written arguments were filed by OP3 where he raised the points of deficiency on the part of manufacturer / dealer for not providing with the guarantee/promise made by them and not against the OP3 as the provisions of the extended warranty policy issued by OP3 are not attracted.

Written arguments were also filed by the complainant.

6. We have heard the arguments orally by OP3 and the complainant and also gone through the documentary evidence submitted by the parties.

The warranty period of the manufacturer started from the date of purchase i.e. 09.09.2016 for a period of one year and the LED did not start functioning from the very beginning. As such the liability for proper functioning of the product comes on the part of OP1 & OP2 i.e. manufacturer and dealer and not on the part of OP3 whose period of warranty started from 09.09.2017 onwards for a period of two years.

7. Therefore the complainant is able to establish deficiency of service on the part of OP1 & OP2 and not against OP3 and as such we direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to refund the cost of LED TV i.e. Rs. 63,000/-. We also award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation payable by OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on 11.04.2018.

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member