Tripura

West Tripura

CC/44/2015

Dr. Arpita Paul. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Roy Varieties & others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.M.Chakraborty, Smt.R.Bhaumik.

13 May 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 44   of   2015  

Dr. Smt. Arpita Paul,
D/O- Sri Anil Paul,    
Mohanpur, P.S. Sidhai,
District- West Tripura.

At present-
Amarpur, P.S. Birganj, 
    South Tripura.                            .…...Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Roy Varieties,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Lake Chowmohani, Agartala, 
Tripura West.

2. M/S G.S. Service,
Sony Authorized Service Centre,
16, Office Lane, Agartala, 
Tripura West.

3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,
A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110 004.            ….........Opposite parties.
   
      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Manabendra Chakraborty,
                      Smt. Ranu Bhowmik, 
                      Advocates.

For the O.P. No.3             : Sri Amritlal Saha,
                      Sri Kajal Nandi,
                      Sri Abheek Saha,
                      Advocates.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 13.05.2016

J U D G M E N T  
     
        This case was filed by one Arpita Paul against Roy Varieties, G.S Service Centre and Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Petition filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Case of the petitioner in short is that she purchased one LED TV from Roy Varieties on payment of Rs.13,490/- on 07.06.14. Warranty card was issued for one year but after few days of purchase the TV was disturbing. Picture was standing, sound not clear. TV set was then produced to the G.S. Service Centre authorized service centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. After  repairing  the TV was returned to the complainant. But TV was not functioning. Complainant then demanded replacement of the TV. But respondent No.1 and 2 pressurized the complainant to receive the defective set and was not ready to replace the TV set or refund the price of the TV Rs.13,490/- and also compensation and litigation cost. 

2.        O.P. being authorized representative of O.P. No.3, Sony India Ltd. filed W/O. It is stated that O.P. No.3 provided a warranty of the product for a period of one year. Warranty shall not apply in case of damages caused by lightening, fire, ingress of water, complainant enjoyed the TV set for 7 months. Complaint was raised and it was placed with the service centre on 22.01.15. service engineer found no problem. Complainant failed to give any report of engineer or expert about any defect in the parts which can be replaced. Whole machinery can not be replaced without any substantial cause. Other 2 O.Ps, the seller of the TV, Roy Varieties and G.S. Service Centre produced no W/S or did not deny the claim in writing. Case proceeded against them exparte. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:-
        (I) Whether the TV set was defective?
        (II) Whether there was any deficiency of service by the O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get redress in this Forum?

4.        Petitioner, Dr. Arpita Paul produced the cash memo, warranty card, service job sheet, letter to the dealer, letter to Sony India, reminder to Sony India, letter admitting return of money, marked as Exhibit- 1 series.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, Meena Bose but she did not appear before the court for cross-examination.

6.        Both the parties produced written argument.

7.        On the basis of evidence and written argument we shall now determine the above points.

        Findings and decision:
8.        We have gone through the evidence as produced. Admittedly petitioner purchased the TV set from the Roy Varieties, O.P. No.1 on payment of Rs.13,490/-. Vouchers is produced to support this. Dr. Arpita Paul petitioner sent the letter to the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. requesting to take necessary step for replacing the TV set. Service job sheet produced to support that TV set was produced before the service centre. From the report of the service centre it is found that electronic adjustment was done and set found O.K. Again letter written to Sony India Ltd. on 05.03.15 for replacement. Meena Bose on behalf of Sony India assured that the regional office will look into the matter. Dr. Arpita Paul made contact with the dealer Roy Varieties. By letter dated 2nd July, 2015 one Soma Bose, customer relations office of Sony India informed that the symptom  was due to external reasons for which no service is required. To improve the performance of the set, alternative option was given and company offered refund of Rs.12,006/- in exchange of client's set. But it was not accepted by the petitioner. Clear expert opinion is not available to support that the TV set was defective. But time and again complaint was sent to the Sony India Ltd. about the defects of the set. The service centre of the Sony India Ltd. at Agartala failed to provide necessary service. The service centre of O.P. No.2 did not appear before court to support that actually the TV was properly repaired. In the Job sheet nothing stated about the fact of repairing. The service centre is to provide proper service for repairing. The seller of the TV set also is duty bound to sell defectless TV set. But both the respondent No.1 and 2 Roy Varieties and G.S. Service centre did not take any proper step for proper service. This is deficiency of service by them. Sony India Ltd., O.P. No.3 promised to take help of Regional office for repairing the TV set but it was not done. Petitioner informed the Sony India Ltd. that she had been serving at Amarpur, at remote station as TV set was not functioning or not working so she was suffering a lot without TV set. She was staying alone in the Government quarter but she could not enjoy because of deficiency of service by O.P. No.1, 2 and 3. On scrutiny and appreciation of record we found that all the O.Ps have deficiency of service. TV set was not replaced. It was not repaired. Finally the defect was admitted by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and 89% of the price offered. From the evidence we have decided that the TV set was defective and required replacement. We also are of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service. We therefore, direct Sony India Pvt. Ltd. to replace the TV set by new one of same model immediately within 2 months after taking back the TV set sold out. We direct the O.P. No. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rs. 10,000/- + Rs.10,000/-)  to the petitioner for their deficiency of service. The amount is to be paid within 2 months, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made.       
      

                           Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA