1.      Heard Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Advocate for the petitioners and Smt. Shakuntala Rani (the respondent) in person.

2.      This revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 19.12.2018, passed in Appeal No. 174 of 2018 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 09.05.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 733 of 2017), where by the complaint has been allowed and the appeal has been dismissed.

3.      Smt. Shakuntala Rani (the respondent) filed Consumer Complaint No. 733 of 2017 on 18.10.2017 for directing the petitioners/opposite parties to replace the T.V. of same model or to refund Rs.1,12,400/- along with interest @ of 12% per annum, from the date of purchase of T.V., Rs.2,30,000/- as compensation for pain and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation. It has been stated that the complainant had purchased Sony Bravia KDL-55W800D, having Serial No. 8506510, LED T.V. Set of 55” (for short T.V.) from Modern Sales (opposite Party-1) for Rs.1,12,400/-, on 20.10.2016, on which, one year warrantee was given. From very beginning, various defects i.e. (i) Sound Problem- Creaking noise, (ii) Non-Functioning Camera, (iii) Non-Functioning of Voice Search system and (iv) Bad Picture Quality, were detected. The complainant called Customer Care Centre in December, 2016 and lodged her complaint, in respect of the aforesaid defects in T.V. Then some Engineer of Sony Company came and tried to cure the defects but of no result. Second complaint was made in March, 2017, then again some Engineer of Sony Company came and tried to cure the defects but of no result. Thereafter, the complainant was making complaints to the Service Centre and the Dealer but they began to avoid the complaints. The complainant then gave a legal notice to the opposite parties on 03.05.2017. Then again some Engineer of Sony Company came and tried to cure the defects but the problems in T.V. were not mended. The complainant again called Customer Care Centre on 05.09.2017, then some Engineer of Sony Company attended the complaint on 07.09.2017 and tried to cure the defects but of no result. The complainant then gave second legal notice to the opposite parties on 21.09.2017 and requested to replace the T.V. with a new T.V. of the same model. The complainant again called Customer Care Centre on 14.10.2017, then some Engineer of Sony Company attended the complaint and tried to cure the defects but the defects were not mended. The opposite party were giving vague excuses and vesting time by checking and repairing. The T.V. had manufacturing defects, from very beginning.

4.      On notice of the complaint, the opposite parties filed their joint written reply. In which they admitted purchase of T.V. on 20.10.2016. However, according to them price of Rs.1,02,600/- was paid. According to them, for the first time, a complaint was made on 11.09.2017, pointing out defects in Camera & Microphone. This complaint was within warrantee period, therefore, after checking, the Camera was replaced and Microphone was repaired, free of cost. The complainant was fully satisfied with the repairs at that time. Prior to 11.09.2017, the complainant never made any complaint either to the dealer or to the Service Centre in respect of any defect. The allegation that she was harassed, was incorrect. The notice dated 03.05.2017 was replied on 05.07.2017, advising the complainant to get her T.V. examined at any nearby Service Centre. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. At the time of purchase of T.V., one year warrantee was given, under which, the opposite parties were liable to repair any defect free of cost. After expiry of about 11 months of purchase, now notice for replacing the T.V. with a new one was given which was not a term of warrantee. No expert evidence has been filed to show that the T.V. was suffering from manufacturing defects. The complaint was filed on false allegations, to obtain a new T.V. with malafide intension.   

 5.     The District Forum, by order dated 09.05.2018, found that the allegation of the opposite parties that no complaint in respect of any defect in T.V. was made prior to 11.09.2017, was incorrect, inasmuch as the complaint (Annexure-C-4) was made in March, 2017 and notice (Annexure-C-3) was given on 03.05.2017. From these complaints, it is proved that there was defect in T.V. in respect of sound, picture and camera, from very beginning. As such deficiency in service has been proved. On these findings, the petitioners were directed to replace the T.V. with a new one of the same make/model within period of thirty days, failing which they would pay Rs.1,12,400/-, Rs.30000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as the cost of the litigation. The opposite parties were given 30 days time, to comply the order, failing which they were liable for interest @ 12% per annum for relief (i) and (ii). The petitioners challenged aforesaid order, in Appeal No. 174 of 2018. Before the State Commission, they confined their arguments for (i) The compensation as awarded was on higher side, (ii) Price of Rs.1,02,600/- of the T.V. was paid and (iii) There was no deficiency in service on their part. State Commission, by the impugned order found that the complainant had made several complaints in respect of defects in the T.V., which were attended by the opposite parties but the defect was not cured. From which, manufacturing defect in T.V. was proved, which was deficiency in service. Once, deficiency in service was proved that then the opposite party were liable to replace the T.V. In invoice dated 20.10.2016 (Annexure-C-1), the price of T.V. was mentioned as Rs.1,12,400/-. The compensation and cost were not on higher side. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision has been filed. 

6.      I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The petitioners, in their written reply, took plea that prior to 11.09.2017, the complainant had never made any complaint either to the dealer or to the Service Centre in respect of any defect in the T.V., from which it was proved that there was no manufacturing defect in the T.V. For the first time, a complaint was made on 11.09.2017, pointing out defects in Camera & Microphone, which was within warrantee period, therefore, after checking, the Camera was replaced and Microphone was repaired, free of cost. The complainant was fully satisfied with the repairs at that time. These pleadings were found to be false by the Foras below inasmuch as the complaint filed copy of the complaint (Annexure-C-4) which was made in March, 2017 and notice (Annexure-C-3) which was given on 03.05.2017. In these circumstances, Foras below believed the affidavit of evidence of the complainant and held that there was defect in T.V. in respect of sound, picture and camera, from very beginning, which could not be cured. If there had been no problem in T.V., then complaint and legal notice would have been given. Foras below relying upon invoice (Annexure-C-1), held that price of T.V. was Rs.1,12,400/-. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Foras below in this respect do not suffer from any illegality. The complainant was an old lady. She was suffering with the defects in T.V. from very beginning. When the petitioners failed to do satisfactory repairs, then this complaint was filed. In such circumstances, award of compensation of Rs.30,000/- was not excessive. Impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. 

ORDER

The revision has no merit and it is dismissed.