Delhi

New Delhi

CC/332/2022

Richpal Singh Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC-332/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Rich Pal Singh Garg

House No. 1097, Sector-2,

Near Atal Park,

Ballabgarh, Faridabad – 121004.                                   ...Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1. Sony India Private Limited & Others

Ground Floor D Block,

Connaught Place, New Delhi.

2. Croma In-Store

Ground Floor D Block,

Connaught Place, New Delhi.

3. Sai Electronics- Sony Service Centre

17, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,

Block-C, New Industrial Twp,

Faridabad, Haryana – 121013.                                        ... Respondents

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmad, Member

Shri Shekhar Chandra, Member

 Date of Institution       :14.12.2022

Date of Order                : 20.02.2023

 

ORDER

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present Complaint has been filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short CP Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short OP) for deficiency of service.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case that complainant purchased a Sony TV bearing model number KD75X80J on 21.10.2021 from Croma/Respondent No.-2. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 2 ahead of the festive session had offered huge sales on its products to attract public at large, respondent No. 2 had informed about the said sale through various pamphlets and advertisement on its various products across the stores in India.
3. It is further stated that on the assurance and representation of OP NO.-2, the complainant invested his hard earned money in buying a television from the store of the Respondent No. 2. The complainant along with his family visited the store of the Respondent No. 2 on 19.10.2021 where the sales team of the Respondent no. 2 had shown various TV sets and had then shown a Sony TV bearing model number KD75X80J. That being technically less informant about the growing technologies, the complainant relied upon the sales team of Respondent no. 2.
4. It is further alleged the complainant was informed that the above said product was lunched in 2021 and is a smart TV with various built in facilities like Built in Tuner, in built Chrome cast and various other features that would be very useful in watching and enjoying any movie or song. Some of the features which were highlighted by Respondent No. 2 at the time of buying were:
   1. 4K HDR processor X1
   2. TRILUMINOS PRO
   3. X-Balanced Speaker
   4. Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos
   5. Voice Search

 

5. It is also alleged that Respondent No. 2 stated that the above said TV was manufactured by Sony i.e. Respondent No. 1 whose services are excellent, quick and the public at large is always in safe hands. The complainant without giving a second thought decided to go with the brand Sony and especially for their Sales services. The complainant bought a Sony TV from the stores of Respondent No. 2.
6. It is further alleged that within few months of buying the TV, it started malfunctioning. There were several issues some of which were technical problems which caused a lot of mental harassment to the complainant i.e.
   1. Going off and on automatically
   2. Manufacturing Problem
   3. Technical issue because of which display is not working
   4. Freezing while web streaming
   5. vertical band of lines come on screen

 

It is also stated that the complainant made various calls and complaints to the Respondent No. 3 however all in vain. That the complainant had also made all the efforts of calling the customer care and requesting them to fix the problem and finally wrote an email to the customer care of Sony for the return of the said product before the warranty expires.

7. That the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand) to respondent no. 2. Complainant had purchased the Sony TV in question as the sales team of Respondent No. 2 informed that it was better than other TVs and it was launched in 2021 the same was inbuilt with all the updated software's and apps. It is also stated the manufacturing defects in the TV have caused tremendous mental and emotional trauma to complainant.
8. It is also alleged that the respondents were not able to fix the technical / inherent manufacturing defect in the said product within the entire one year. Thus complainant via email dated 27.09.2022 sought replacement of the said product or refund of the entire amount however the Respondent choose not to reply to the said Email. The respondent verbally refused to refund or replace it which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The Respondents are bound to compensate the complainants for the same.
9. It is alleged this Forum has the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. It is also alleged complaint has not filed any other petition before any other court or forum with respect to the same cause of action. The present complaint has been filed within prescribed limitation period.
10. It is prayed that respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,65,000 (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand). Respondents be also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 (Ten Lakhs Only) for causing mental torture and harassing to the complainant and also pay litigation expenses of Rs. INR 85,000.
11. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP, OP No.-1 was served on 26.12.2022 whereas OP No.-2 was served on 28.12.2022. However as OP No.-1 and 2 as failed to filed reply within the statutory period their defence was struck off vide order dated 03.02.2023. OP No.-3 was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 03.02.2023.
12. We have heard the counsel for complaint and perused the record.
13. Complainant filed his evidence by affidavit reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint. Complainant proved the copy of invoice ExPw1/A, various complaints made to OP No.-3/ the service centre of respondent Ex PW1/B. The complaint lodged with OP for return of the TV exhibit Ex.Pw1/C.
14. In view of the testimony of complainant  which has gone unrebutted, we are of the view that complainant has succeeding in proving that the services of OP No.-1 and 2 were deficient for selling a TV to complainant which had manufacturing defects. The TV set sold by OPs, which is mighty and rich organization is having inherent manufacturing defect but OP did not refund cost price of TV to the consumer who was not at all satisfied with the performance of the TV set. Such traders and manufacturers have to be dealt with heavy hand, as they forget that fight between poor consumer and rich and mighty traders and manufacturers is a fight between David and Goliath and a poor consumer who has been wronged by them is forced to approach the legal Forum for redressal of his grievances.
15. We accordingly hold OP No.-1 and 2 guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and direct OP No.-1 and 2 to refund Rs. 1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand) to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of lodging of complaint with opposite party. We also award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), to be paid within  4 weeks from the date of receipt of order, failing which OP-1 and 2 will be liable to pay interest @15% interest p.a. till realization.

A copy of this order be provided/sent to all parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

 

 

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY

(President)

BARIQ AHMAD                                                                                      SHEKHAR CHANDRA        

                                          MEMBER                                                                                                MEMBER