DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 837/14
Shri Sushil Kumar Bansal
S/o Shri Rur Mal Bansal
R/o D-1/89, Block-D1, New Kondli
Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi – 110 096 ….Complainant
Vs.
- New Rhythm House
Through its prop./A.R.
B.O. at B-1/17, Sector-18
Noida UP
H.O. at R-2/132, Rajnagar,
Ghaziabad, UP
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director/Manager/A.R.
Regd. Office at
A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044 ….Opponents
Date of Institution: 07.10.2014
Judgment Reserved for : 11.08.2016
Judgment Passed on : 26.08.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
JUDGEMENT
The present complaint pertains to allegations of deficiency in services by the OPs New Rhythm House (OP-1), the authorized dealer of OP-2, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) and AP Network Services (OP-3), the authorized service centre of OP-2.
2. The complainant purchased one Sony LED, model No. KLV-46R452A IN5 serial No. 4301822 from OP-1 on 31.03.2013 for a sum of Rs. 72,900/-. It is further stated that the complainant started facing problem in the working of LED, which was repaired, but after few days, it again stopped working. Thereafter, complainant made several complaints dated 01.12.2013 (Complaint No. 016885025), 13.12.2013 (Complaint No. 17031560), 01.06.2014 (complaint No. 17329494) and 03.07.2014 (complaint no. 019864562). It is further stated that the mechanic of OP-3 stated that there was a manufacturing defect. The complainant visited OPs several times but his grievance was not addressed. Legal notice dated 25.07.2014 was also served. Feeling aggrieved, complainant filed this present complaint.
Notice of the complaint was duly served to all OPs and OP-2 filed reply to the complaint, where OP-2 has denied any deficiency in service on their part. They also submitted that the LED set was lying repaired with OP, intimation with respect to which was given to the complainant on 30.06.2014 and 15.07.2014. Thereafter, the complainant filed rejoinder where he reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Both the parties have led evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant has examined Shri Sushil Kumar Bansal, the complainant himself, who has placed reliance on Ex.CW1/A to Ex. CW1/I. OP-2 has examined Ms. Meera Bose, Executive –Sony India Pvt. Ltd, who was relying on Ex. OPW1/1 (Colly) to Ex. OPW1/2 (Colly.).
3. We have heard the arguments of both the parties. Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the complainant started facing problem within the warranty period of the LED, it was also admitted by OP that the complaints by the complainant were promptly addressed. However, after complaints LCD panel was replaced on 18.01.2014 and 24.06.2014 respectively. As per submissions of the OP, they are a company of international repute and known for excellent quality worldwide.
It is unacceptable from a company of such repute to sell product, where the LCD panel of LED needed to be replaced twice within the period of warranty.
Hence, the OP is directed to replace the faulty LED with the new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Further, OP-2 is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards mental torture and agony. This shall also include the cost of litigation.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
