Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/23/2019

S Sheik Dawood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smart Care Sony Service - Opp.Party(s)

M/s P Anbarasan

06 Apr 2022

ORDER

                                                   Date of Complaint Filed  :  03.12.2018

                                                                                                              Date of Reservation    : 28.03.2022                                                                         

                                                                                                              Date of Order                 : 06.04.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA       : MEMBER II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.23 /2019

WEDNESDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

Mr. S. Sheik Dawood,

S/o Mr. Shahul Hameed,

New No.57 Old No.26,

Purasaiwalkkam High Road,

Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.                                                                                                                              .. Complainant                                      

..Versus..

1.Smart Care, K. Suseendran, Executive Engineer,

   Sony Authorised Service Centre,

   G1, Appollo Dubai Plaza,

   No.100, Mahalingapuram Main Road,

   Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

 

2.Sony India Pvt.,

   M. Sharon, Regional Consumer Relation,

   Centennial Sqaure, 6^th floor,

   6A-Dr. Ambedhkar Road,

   Kodambakkam,

   Chennai.

 

3. Vasanth and Co.

   Mr.K. Abilash, Executive Manager,

   Purasaiwalkkam Branch,

   No.191, Purasaiwalkkam High Road,

   Chennai – 600 010.                                                                                                                  ..  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. P. Anbarasan, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties    :  Exparte

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.       The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 under sections 2(c)(ii),2(f) and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to replace the defective television with a proper and good television or in the alternate, to refund the entire consideration of Rs.51,593/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the 1^st complaint i.e. 02.01.2018 till the date of actual refund and direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages for mental agony along with cost.

2.      The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Complainant had purchased a brand new Sony LED TV, being Model No.KD-43X7002E from the 3^rd Opposite Party herein on 10.07.2017 for a total sale consideration of Rs.51,953/- vide the 3^rd Opposite Party’s invoice bearing No.11031170000257.

3.    The said Television was up and running in good condition for three months from its purchase. After three complete months, the Complainant faced certain malfunctioning in the Television. He immediately brought the same to the knowledge of the 1^st Opposite Party, who is the Authorised service centre of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The service people, came from the 1^st Opposite Party herein and took the television for service on 02.01.2018 in pursuance of the Complainant’s request ID.No.44919800 and the said television was delivered back on 23.01.2018 stating there were some display issues and the same has been rectified. But again, after two months, the Complainant had faced the same problem and therefore, on 17.03.2018, the Complainant informed the 1^st Opposite Party, through a request ID.No46286754 and the service person again came and took the television and delivered it,  stating that they had replaced the television panel. Immediately thereafter, the issue arose again on 21.03.2018 and the Complainant raised a complaint through Request ID.No.46369453 and the said issue recurred repeatedly and the Complainant was put to undue mental pressure as the Complainant could not enjoy the television purchased with his hard earned money and with grave agony, the Complainant was constrained to raise complaints time and again on 17.04.2018 under Request ID.No.46891346 and again on 02.07.2018 through Request ID.No.48286554. Subsequently, the Complainant had also extended his warranty on 27.06.2018 for a sum of Rs.5000/- vide No.40029701, in the bonafide hope that the issue persisting in the television will be rectified and the Complainant will be able to enjoy the fruits of having spent such a huge sum of money. On 27.07.2018, the 2^nd Opposite Party, in pursuance to the various complaints raised by the Complainant, have issued a communication admitting to the defect on their end leading to the defective display of the television sold to the Complainant. Further, in the said notice, the 2^nd Opposite Party herein had agreed to replace the Display Panel as per the terms & conditions of the standard warranty. Hence, the Complainant was in the bonafide hope that the Complainant’s television would be rectified and that the Complainant can put the television to optimum use.

4.     Despite the lapse of about one month since the date of such communication having been issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party herein, who is the manufacturer of the product, nothing was forthcoming from any of the Opposite Parties herein and the Complainant  still had to utilize a television which renders a bad viewing experience.

5.     The Complainant has sent legal notice on 29.08.2018 which was duly served upon the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have not issued any reply notice nor was anything forth coming from them despite the receipt of the legal notice. Hence, the complaint is filed to replace the defective television or in the alternative to refund the cost of the defective television and to pay damages for mental agony.

6.     Notice was served to the Opposite Parties on 07.05.2019. Mrs.Malini George filed vakalath for the 2^nd Opposite Party on 07.05.2019. The 1^st  and 3^rd  Opposite Parties were called absent and set exparte on 07.05.2019. As the 2^nd Opposite Party did not file Written Version within 45 days, the 2^nd Opposite Party was set an exparte on 21.06.2019.

7.     The Complainant has filed proof affidavit. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the Complainant. Written Argument was filed by the Complainant.

 

8.         Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the defective television from the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation towards mental agony from the Opposite Parties?

3. To what other relief the Complainant is entitled to?

9.        Point No.1

        The Complainant contends that he purchased a brand New Sony LED TV bearing Model No.KD-43X7002E from the 3^rd Opposite Party on 10.07.2017 for a sale consideration of Rs.51,953/- for which the 3^rd  Opposite Party issued invoice bearing No.11031170000257, which is evident through Ex.A1.

    After three months from the date of purchase, the television started malfunctioning which the Complainant brought to the notice to the 1^st  Opposite Party, the authorised agent of the 2^nd Opposite Party on several occasions. Though the 1^st  Opposite Party had attended the complaints which is evident from the Ex.A2 series  of the Complainant, the issue recurred repeatedly due to which the Complainant was made to run from pillar to post and was put to undue mental pressure.    It is seen from Ex.A3  the warranty was also extended on 27.06.2018.      

        On careful analysis of Ex.A4 it is found that the 2^nd  Opposite Party has admitted that there was defect in display panel of the television supplied to the Complainant which needs to be replaced. However, even after the communication of the 2^nd Opposite Party that they would  replace the Display Panel,  the Complainant’s television was not rectified.

        Further, the Complainant had issued legal notice dated 29.08.2018 to the Opposite Parties. Even after receipt of the legal notice, the Opposite Parties failed to reply or replace the defective television which amounts to deficiency in service.

        Hence we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the defective television of Rs.51,593/-. Accordingly, Point No.1 is decided in favour of the Complainant.

10.      Point No.2 :   

As the point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant and  as it is found that the Opposite Parties are responsible for mental agony caused to the Complainant, the Complainant is entitled for compensation from the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, Point No.2 is decided in favour of the Complainant.

11.        Point No.3

        As far as  Point No.3 is concerned, the reliefs sought for by the Complainant are granted. So, the complaint and is not entitled for any other relief.     

12.   Hence we are inclined to allow the complaint in part. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.51,593/- towards cost of the defective television sold to the Complainant, to pay a sum of  Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of  Rs.3000/- towards cost of the complaint to the Complainant.

        In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Hence, the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.51,593/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Three only) towards cost of the defective television sold to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of  Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only)  towards cost of the complaint to the Complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.

 Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 6^th day of April 2022.

  

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                 T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                  B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                             MEMBER I                                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:

 

Ex.A1	10.07.2018	Invoice
Ex.A2	02.01.2018 17.03.2018 21.03.2018 17.04.2018 02.07.2018	Complaints (Series)
Ex.A3	27.06.2018	Warranty Extension
Ex.A4	27.07.2018	Communication
Ex.A5	29.08.2018	Legal Notice with acknowledgement

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties: Nil

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                            B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                                                   MEMBER I                              PRESIDENT