BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                Consumer Complaint No. 104 of 2016.

                                                Date of Institution:         17.05.2016.

                                                Date of Decision:           18.12.2018.                                      

Jyoti wife of Shri Gagan Arora, resident of Hanuman Mandir Marg, Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

…..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1.       Sagar Electronics, in front of Adarsh Mahila College, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.

2.       Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Corporative, near Metro Station Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director.

3.       Kamla Enterprises, Hisar through its Manager.

…..Opposite Parties.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri Hanuman Parsad Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Harinder Rana, Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

              Brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he has purchased a Sony LED TV Model No. 32R412L from OP No.2 vide Invoice No. 1202 dated 18.5.2015 for Rs.29,500/-.  It is alleged that OP No. 1 has given one year warranty of the LED in question.  It is further alleged that in the month of March, 2016 the LED has become defective.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached, who gave assurance for the repair of the LED.  It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 did not repair the LED in question.  It is further alleged that on 25.4.2016 the complainant received a SMS from OP No. 2 bearing ID No.31863892 and one Shri Parshant, Engineer of OP No. 3 visited the house of complainant for checking the LED and told that the plate/card has become defective and needs to be replaced and demanded money for repair of the LED, but the complainant refused to pay any illegal amount.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the OPs many times for the repair of the LED and also make call on toll free No.18001037799, but the OPs have failed in repairing the LED of the complainant, but to no effect.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, this complaint.   

2.                On notice, OPs have filed reply denying the allegations of the complainant.  It is alleged that the complainant has approached the OP No.3 for the very first time on 26.4.2016 i.e. after more than 11 months raising the issue with the penal of the LED TV.  It is further alleged that the OP No. 3 without any delay attended the complaint and inspected the TV and observed that the display panel of LED was physically damaged and needs to be replaced and due to which the warranty stands void.  It is further alleged that there is no warranty in case of any physical damage due to external cause or due to complainant’s negligence and this fact is clearly mentioned in warranty terms and also communicated to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant was told about estimated cost of repair/replacement of part i.e. Rs.11,343/-, but the complainant refused to get repair the LED.  It is further alleged that there is no manufacturing defect in the LED in question.  Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                The complainant in support of his case placed on record his duly sworn affidavit as annexure C1 and closed the evidence. 

4.                Ld. counsel for the OPs in support of their version has placed on record duly sworn affidavit of one Meena Bose as Annexure RW1/A & annexure R1 to R4 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and ld. counsel for the OPs at length and have gone through case file carefully.

6.                After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OPs and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as she has miserably failed to bring any cogent and convincing evidence to prove deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Now, the question arises whether the complainant is entitled to the relief, as prayed.  The answer has already been given above that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.  The only plea taken by the OPs is that the LED has become defective due to some physical damage, which is not covered under warranty.  The plea taken by the OPs is tenable, because from the perusal of annexure R3 photo of LED, it is clear that the LED in question has become defective due to some physical damage.  On the other hand, the complainant failed to produce on record any documents evidence to disprove that the stand taken by the OPs.  Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs.  So, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.   

                    Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. 

Announced in open court.

18.12.2018.         

                   (Renu Chaudhary)                      (Manjit Singh Naryal)

                   Member.                                             President,

                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                       Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.