Date of filing : 28 February, 2022.
Date of Order : 12 October, 2023.
Mr. DHIRAH KUMAR DEY, Hon’ble Member.
The instant case arises when Smt. Krishna Mondal, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint U/S. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the act) against (1) M/s. Neosa Electronics Pvt. Ltd., (2) Mrs. Deepa Rai Singhani, and (3) M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs.
The facts, as stated in the complaint petition and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the complainant purchased a Sony brand Television on 25/03/2015. When the TV set got a problem for which the complainant’s family could not see clear picture on this set, the complainant contacted with the OP – 1 for repairing. One technician came to attend the defected TV who, after checking, stated that a part in the TV was to be changed for which he estimated Rs.2,800/- to be paid by the complainant. Complainant paid Rs.1,400/- as an advance on that date i.e. on 12/07/2021. Complainant alleged in this complaint that despite receiving advance money the OPs failed to repair the TV set for which they could not watch their favourite programmes and their means of indoor entertainment thus hampered, especially when the complainant’s son is a physically challenged person. She has stated that the OPs expressed their inability to repair the set due to non-availability of the requisite part, even they proposed to replace the TV set by a new and advanced set in exchange of the defective unrepaired set for which the complainant had to pay some extra money. But the complainant insisted to repair the set as she did not intend to replace the set. Her repeated efforts brought no result for which she filed the instant complaint praying to direct the OPs: (i) to refund the cost of the TV set which was Rs.13,013/-, (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for her mental agony and harassment, (iii) to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost and other relief or reliefs.
Complainant filed copies of (i) Invoice issued by M/s. Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. during the purchase on 25/03/2015 (ii) Service Job Sheet issued by the OP-1 during receiving advance payment of Rs.1,400/- on 12/07/2021, (iii) letter dated 11/08/2021 issued to the OP-1 by the complainant, (iv) two letters dated 26/10/2021 & 29/11/2021 issued by OP-3 to the complainant, (v) disability certificate of her son and (vi) drop letter issued by the A D, CA & FBP, Howrah and (vii) Aadhaar Card of the complainant as annexure to the complaint petition.
After admitting the complaint, this Commission sent notice to the OPs to appear and file their written version. Despite receiving notice none of the OPs appeared before this Commission, nor had they filed any written version result of which the case proceeded ex parte. Complainant then filed her Evidence on Affidavit. Ex parte argument was heard in full and the complainant filed Brief Notes on Argument. We have now come to the position to deliver the final order in this case. We have to decide whether there is any deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs for which the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASON
The factual matrix emerged from the complaint petition and the annexed documents is that the complainant purchased a new television set, SONY LED 24P412B, from M/s. Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. on 25/03/2015 for Rs.13,013. The TV set developed some defects for which complainant and her family could not see clear picture on the set. They contacted the service centre of the manufacturer, the OP-1 hereinabove, who, after inspection, estimated an amount of Rs.2,800/- to be given by the complainant to repair the set as a part of the TV was to be replaced. Complainant gave Rs.1,400/-to the technician of the OP-1 attended the set on that very date of inspection, i. e. on 12/07/2021. But, the OP-1 could not repair the set as the required part was not available. After repeated communication, as per the complaint, the OP-3, seems to be the manufacturer of the TV set, expressed their inability in repairing the set for non-availability of the requisite part. They proposed the complainant to replace the defective set by a new one, in exchange, for a special price of Rs.21,281/-. After receiving notice from the A D, CA & FBP, the OP-3 informed the complainant through a letter dated 29/11/2021 that they were ready to repair the defective set by replacing the defective part, which was then available with them, for a cost of Rs.2,750/- for which complainant had already paid Rs.1,400/-. But the mediation process failed according to the letter issued by the A D, CA & FBP, on 07/12/2021 due to irreconcilability of the views between both the parties and hence the case arises. An important thing is to be noted that through their letter dated 26/10/2021 the OP-3 regretted for having difficulty in getting the necessary part for repairing. But through their letter dated 29/11/2021, when the notice for mediation was received from the A D, CA & FBP, they stated that the requisite part was now available with them and they were then ready to repair. Another interesting thing is to note that they cleverly offer the exchange for a price of Rs.21,281/, but they have not mentioned the exact price of the model which they had offered.
A question is now arising in our mind about the eagerness of the OPs in resolving customer’s/consumer’s complaint. From 12/07/2021 to 26/10/2021 the OPs could not collect the necessary part/parts, but after receiving notice from a third party they have collected it. They should have to take special care about the availability of the necessary parts of any item which they are selling in the market. In the first instance they expressed their inability in repairing the defective set and thus offered an exchange and that with a trick also. We consider this gesture as a trick in selling new items stating that the defective item could not be repaired and such trick should be stopped. On the other hand, a purchaser may have the fascination on the item he/she purchased and thus he/she may have the intention to retain any purchased item in its normal form, even by repairing it. We find no reasoning from the complainant why she did not accept the exchange proposal or even the defective set got repaired, especially when her family got entertainment from this TV for over six years.
From the case records we do not find that the OP-1 is deficient in it’s duty towards repairing the TV set as they have not received the necessary part from the manufacturer. Similarly, the OP-2 is mere an office personnel who has not any role except to communicate with the complainant about the decision of the authority.
Under these conditions we are of the view that the OPs, especially the OP-3, as they are the manufacturer of the TV set in question, is deficient in render service to the complainant for which they should be liable to refund the purchase price of Rs.13,013/- to the complainant/purchaser together with Rs.1,400/- which amount the OP-1 had received as advance from the complainant for repairing. We are of the view that no compensation will be allowed as the complainant has used the set for over six years and she has refused to get the set repaired. However, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is to be imposed to the OPs as litigation cost.
Hence,
it is
ORDERED
that the Complaint Case bearing No. CC/53/2022 is allowed ex parte against all the Opposite Parties.
The Opposite Parties No. – 3 is directed to refund through the O. P. No. – 1 Rs.13,013/- together with Rs.1,400/- to the complainant within 30 days from receiving this order. The O. P. No. – 1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost within thes time period failing which the entire sum shall carry 9% interest till full and final realization.
Let a copy of this order be issued to both the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me
Member.
