Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/103/2016

D.Ravikumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Digital Vision, Sony Authorized Service Centre. - Opp.Party(s)

R.Kannan, P.Shoba

07 Jun 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   24.03.2016

                                                                        Date of Order :   07.06.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II                

C.C.NO.103/2016

WEDNESDAY THIS  7^TH  DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

D. Ravikumar,

No.331, Kamarajar Road,

Alwarthirunagar,

Chennai 600 087.                                           ..Complainant

                                              ..Vs..

1.  Digital Vision,

Sony Authorized Service Centre,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.44, Veerappa Nagar,

2^nd Street,

Alwarthirunagar, Chennai 600 087.

 

2. Sony India Private Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

Centennal Square, 6^th Floor,

6A Ambedkar Road,

Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.                   ..Opposite parties .

 

For the Complainant                   :    M/s. R. Kannan & another          

For the opposite parties 1 & 2      :    Exparte.

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2  to replace the defective TV set with new Sony Bravia 32 LED TV on the remaining payment of Rs.8285/- or the opposite party-1 to return the amount of Rs.3,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for pain suffered by the complainant .  

1.  The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that he had purchased  32 inch LED  TV in Thailand, Brand Sony Bravia in Authorized Sony Dealer in Bangkok city on 24.10.2012.    Further the complainant states that at the time of purchase  the Sony Authorized Dealer had revealed that the Sony is the International Brand and the Service Warranty is available in India also.      On August 2015 the complainant filed one complaint about the defect of double image in the Sony TV set through the Sony Service Centre Centralized Telephone.    After inspection of the TV set the representative stated that it was not in working condition  and the display must be replaced.  The representative also collected Rs.230/- for the inspection of the TV set.  

2.     Further the complainant state that the 1^st opposite party of the  Digital Vision Company representative had called the complainant through the cell phone on 17.8.2015 and revealed that the cost of the display including their service charges is Rs.11,285/- and the complainant should pay the advance Rs.3,000/-.  On that day itself the complainant went to  1^st opposite party of the Digital Vision Company in person and got an estimate of the display and then paid Rs.3,000/- by cash.  The above said company will replace the display within one week time.    If the display

not available in the Sony India Private Ltd company they can replace the New Sony 32” TV set for the same amount Rs.11,285/- under exchange of the defective  TV set.     The complainant was ready to pay the service charge and display cost  of Rs.11,285/- and paid advance Rs.3000/- for replacement of display of the Sony TV but the opposite party company was failed to provide service to the complainant.  Accordingly the complainant issued  legal notice to the opposite parties through his counsel.   In reply notice  the opposite parties revealed they offer 25% discount on the purchase of New Sony Bravia TV set which is already refused by the complainant.     The 1^st opposite party who received Rs.3000/- as advance to replace the display had not repaid to the complainant till date.    As such the act of the opposite parties is amount to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   Hence the above complaint is filed.  

3.     Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite parties 1 & 2  did not appear before this forum and therefore they were set exparte.   

4.     Though the 1^st  & 2^nd  opposite parties remained exparte this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this forum. 

5.     In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to  Ex.A5  are marked. 

 

6.      The points for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the T.V. Set on the remaining payment of Rs.8285/-  or a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the 1^st opposite party  as prayed for?.

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to  a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony as prayed for ?

 

7.   POINTS  1 & 2 :     

           The complainant purchased 32 inch LED TV in Thailand, Branch Sony Bravia from Authorized Sony Dealer in Bangkok city on 24.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.23,000/- as per Ex.1.

8.     The complainant contended that at the time of purchase of the T.V. the dealer revealed that the service warranty is available in India also and on the said promise he purchased the Sony Brand T.V.  In the month of August 2015 the said TV had defect of double image  and on complaint the service centre representative,  revealed that the display is not in working condition, must be replaced and gave an estimate for Rs.11,285/- as per  Ex.A2  for which he paid advance amount of Rs.3,000/- to the opposite party.   They also stated that if the display is not available they will replace with a new T.V. for Rs.11,285/-.

9.     The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party neither replaced the display unit nor returned the advance amount.  He  also sent legal notice to the opposite parties to replace with new T.V. set which was denied by them.   Ultimately the complainant had filed this complaint. 

10.    The job sheet Ex.A2 reveals that the product is out of warranty.  On the other hand the complainant had not placed any record to prove  that the warranty is in force.    It is also seen from Ex.A3 & Ex.A5 i.e. the reply

notice sent by the 2^nd opposite party that the T.V. is not a model marked in India and there was difficult in sourcing the parts and repair of the same.    Whereas it is also seen from the evidence of the complaint that the 1^st opposite party offered to replace the defective set with current model T.V. after a discount of 25% of MRP  but the complainant  refused the said offer.   Therefore the claim of the complainant against 1^st opposite party  to replace the defective TV set with new one is not acceptable.

 

10.      However when the parts were not available the 1^st opposite party ought to have returned the sum of Rs.3000/- collected as advance for repair   but he neither rendered any service nor returned the advance amount of Rs.3000/- till date and thereby committed  unfair treade practice / deficiency in service and also caused mental agony to the complainant.

11.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of  the considered view that the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- received as advance for repair along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 24.3.2016 to till the date of this order i.e. 7.6.2017 and also compensation of Rs.2,000/- along with cost  of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.  The complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed and points  1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is  allowed in part.  The opposite party-1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) received as advance for repair along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of  complaint i.e. 24.3.2016 to till the date of this order i.e. 7.6.2017 and also compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony and also cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant.   The complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

              Dictated by the Member-I to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  7^th    day  of  June  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants’ side documents:

 

Ex.A1- 24.10.2012         - Copy of TV Purchase Bill.

Ex.A2- 17.8.2015  - Copy of Estimate and bill for Rs.3,000/-

Ex.A3- 28.8.2015  - Copy of letter from Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

Ex.A4- 15.9.2015  - Copy of legal notice sent by the complainant.

Ex.A5- 6.11.2015  - Copy of reply sent by the opposite parties.

 

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:   .. Nil.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.