Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member

1.       Sahil Sharma has brought the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that  complainant approached the opposite party for repair of the  Sony TV Model No. KLV-40R452A IN5 18541301 with the complaint of No power and obtained estimate from the opposite party vide job No. J60450024 dated 20.2.2016 for an amount of Rs. 6699.00 and handed over the abovesaid TV to the opposite party. The opposite party has delivered the abovesaid TV to the complainant vide cash Memo No. J6/FY 15-02/000562 dated 24.2.2016 after fitting Part No. A1949922A Part name BB PAA 40 COMPL SERVICE .The complainant made the payment of Rs 6699/- to the opposite party at the time of taking delivery of the abovesaid TV set. The said TV set was not working properly even after spending Rs. 6699/- by the complainant . The complainant time and again requested the opposite party to remove the defect, but to no avail. The opposite party however advised the complainant to bring the TV set again to service centre of opposite party which the complainant brought and delivered the same to the opposite party. After receipt of the TV set ,  complainant was given a service job sheet No. J60637223 dated 14.3.2016.  The opposite party told that since the display of the set is damaged, it is to be replaced by a new one which will cost to the complainant at Rs. 20000/-. The said TV set is lying with the opposite party even after spending Rs. 6699/- being the amount paid to the opposite party . The complainant requested the opposite party many a times to  deliver the TV set in working condition without charging more money, but the opposite party flatly refused  to do so. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite party be directed to deliver the abovestated TV set to the complainant in working condition without charging any more money ;

(b)     Opposite party be also directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 25000/- to the complainant due to deficiency of service ;

(c )     Compensation to the tune of Rs.20000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5500/- be also awarded to the complainant .

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice , opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party on 20.2.2016   raising an issue of “No power” in the LED. Opposite party inspected the said LED  and replaced the BA Board of the said LED. Due to the said reason, the complainant has to pay Rs. 6699/- for carrying out the replacement of the part. Thereafter the complainant again approached the opposite party on 1.3.2016 raising an issue of “Line in Picture” . The opposite party again replaced the BA Board but did not charge anything from the complainant. Lastly complainant approached the opposite party on 14.3.2016 raising an issue with the said LED. Upon inspection, it was observed that the condition of the said LED was damaged. The said fact was communicated to the complainant .  However, upon inspection it was found that the panel was defective and the display was damaged. Cost of repair was communicated to the complainant, which was rejected by the complainant . Thereafter the complainant did not approach the opposite party to collect the LED from the service centre.  Since the warranty period with respect to the aforesaid LED was already expired, therefore, the said LED was not covered under the warranty as per warranty policy. While submitting that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/5 and closed the evidence.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Saurabh Sharma,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurwinder Singh Ex.OP1, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP2, copy of cash memo bill Ex.OP3, copy of retail invoice Ex.OP4, copy of cash memo bill Ex.OP5, affidavit of Sh.Vinod Kumar Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       From the facts and  circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant approached the opposite party for repair of his Sony TV model No. KLV-40R452A IN5 18541301 with the complaint of “No power: and the opposite party issued job card No. J60450024 dated 20.2.2016 for an estimate cost of Rs. 6699/-. Copy of job card accounts for Ex.CW1/1. It was the case of the complainant that the opposite party has delivered the abovesaid TV to the complainant after fitting BA PAA 40 COMPL SERVICE part  for which the complainant made payment of Rs. 6699/- to the opposite party vide   cash Memo No. J6/FY 15-02/000562 dated 24.2.2016, copy of the same is Ex.CW1/2 on record. It has further been alleged by the complainant that the abovesaid TV set was not working properly even after spending Rs. 6699/- for which the complainant approached the opposite party many a times to remove the defect but to no effect. However, the opposite party  has advised the complainant to bring the abovesaid TV set again to service centre of the opposite party. The complainant on the asking of the opposite party again handed over the TV set to the opposite party and the opposite party  issued service job sheet No. J60637223 dated 14.3.2016, copy of job sheet is Ex.CW1/3. Opposite  party after inspection of the said TV set, told the complainant that since  the display of the set is damaged and the same is to be replaced by a new one  which will cost to the complainant at Rs. 20000/-. The plea of the complainant  that since the above stated TV set was not working properly even after spending Rs. 6699/-, as such opposite party is liable  to set right the TV set to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any amount.  However, this plea  of the complainant is not tenable as the defect which was occurred  in TV set  on 20.2.2016 was set right by the opposite party by replacing the BA Board on charging Rs. 6699/- which the complainant duly paid as the TV set was not within warranty period, which fact was also admitted by the complainant. However, the TV again became defective  on 14.3.2016 and the defect detected during this time “panel  defective and the display was damaged”. As the defect occurred this time was different from the defect as occurred on 20.2.2016 which was duly removed by replacing BA Board, as such the complainant is liable to pay the repair charges which comes to Rs. 20000/-  for removing the defect in Panel, which the complainant did not pay  . As such the TV set was not repaired  without charging amount of repair charges as the same was not within the warranty period.

7.       In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 4.5.2017