Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/174/2018

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Shakuntala Rani - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Sharma, Adv.

19 Dec 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	174 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	14.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	19.12.2018

 

1.  Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-18, Mohan Cooperatives, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi – 110044.

2.  Modern Electronics Pvt. Ltd., (Service Center), through its authorized signatory SCO 126-127, First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

3.  Modern Sales-22, (Dealer), through its authorized signatory, SCO 1122, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

…….Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

 

Smt. Shakuntala Rani, House No.3070, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

 

                                                     ...Respondent/Complainant.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against   order dated 09.05.2018 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.733 of 2017.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Seema, Advocate for the respondent alongwith Ms. Ranjna Shahi, daughter of the respondent/complainant.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   The appellants/opposite parties have filed this appeal against order dated 09.05.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, complaint bearing No.733 of 2017 filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed in the following manner:-

“8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

                                     i.        To replace the LED in question with a new one of same make/model, within a period of thirty days from the receipt of copy of this order, upon return of the old one from the complainant, failing which OPs shall refund its invoice value i.e. Rs.1,12,400/- to the complainant.

                                   ii.        To pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;

                                  iii.        To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.        This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2.              Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that on 20.10.2016, she purchased a 55” LED TV (Sony Bravia) from Opposite Party No.1 against payment of Rs.1,12,400/-.  The said LED TV carried warranty of one year.  It was stated that right from the very beginning, the said LED TV started showing signs of being defective i.e. sound problem, non-functioning of the camera, non-functioning of voice search function and bad picture quality. It was further stated that the aforesaid defects were repeatedly brought to the notice of the opposite parties. It was further stated that on 7.9.2017, the executive of the opposite parties came and replaced the camera and the microphone but even then, the condition of LED TV did not improve. It was further stated that the complainant served legal notice upon the opposite parties but to no avail. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed before the Forum. 

3.             The opposite parties, in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant purchased the LED TV in question after detailed demonstration of the features and functions alongwith the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the aforesaid LED TV. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 provided a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. It was further stated that after enjoying the said LED TV for 11 months, the complainant for the very first time approached the service centre on 11.09.2017 with issue of camera & Microphone not working. The camera was replaced by Opposite Party No.3 free of costs. It was further stated that issue pertaining to the LED was duly resolved by Opposite Party No.3 and thereafter, the complainant never visited any of the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite parties nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The complainants filed rejoinder wherein they reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of opposite parties.

5.             The parties led evidence in support of their case.

6.             After going through the evidence on record and submissions of Counsel for the parties, the Forum partly allowed the complaint, as referred to above.

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties.

8.                          We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

9.             It may be stated here that at the time admission of the appeal on 10.07.2018, Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties restricted his prayer only to the following extent:-

(i)          Compensation awarded is on the higher side.

(ii)        The actual amount paid for the TV, in question, by the respondent/complainant was in the sum of Rs.1,02,600/- as is evident from the invoice dated 20.10.2016, whereas, the District Forum, in the event of non-replacement, ordered refund of an amount of Rs.1,12,400/-.

10.           It was submitted by him that the Forum failed to consider the fact that issue pertaining to the LED TV was duly resolved on timely basis by the service centre and that too free of costs. It was further submitted that the Forum has only considered and relied on the statements of the respondent/complainant, which has no evidentiary proof. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant has failed to bring on record any material evidence to show that the LED TV, in question, was having some inherent defect. It was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order be set aside.

11.           On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent/ complainant submitted that the LED TV, in question, is still giving the same problems. It was further submitted that the Forum, while holding deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties, rightly held them liable to replace the LED TV, in question, with a new one of same make/model and also adequately compensated the complainant to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment caused to her besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

12.           So far as deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in not curing the defects indicated in LED TV, in question, is concerned, in our opinion, the Forum in its order has rightly expressed its opinion that the respondent/ complainant, time and again, brought the same to the notice of the appellants/opposite parties but the problems could not be resolved. Annexure C-3 is the legal notice dated 03.05.2017, wherein the respondent/complainant put his grievance qua existence of following problems:-

“1. Right from beginning it has a sound problem; initially there was a Creaking Noise Problem for which Sony executive had come and mended but the problem of sound clarity could not be mended.

 

2. Right from day one the camera is not working, this was told by the client to the Sony executive who has visited in the Dec 2016, he worked on it for one hour but the camera did not become operational.”

 

13.           Vide the aforesaid legal notice, the respondent/complainant requested the appellants/opposite parties to refund the price of the LED TV.

14.           The appellants/opposite parties in their reply dated 05.07.2017 to the legal notice, while not acceding to the request of the respondent/complainant for refund of price of the LED TV, asked her to get the product inspected at their nearest ASC, so that after inspection, they could render necessary service support.

15.           It may be stated here that why not at earlier point of time, when the respondent/complainant was running from pillar to post, with her grievance of inherent defects in the LED TV, the appellants/opposite parties rectified all those defects and now, when legal notice was served, they came up with this offer of extending necessary service. However, the fact is that the defects in the LED TV, in question, were not cured to the entire satisfaction of the respondent/complainant. The Forum, in our considered opinion, rightly held that in such a situation, report from an expert was not required. The Forum, in Para No.6 of its order, rightly held as under:-

“6.        The complainant further had furnished affidavit that from day one, there were defects in the LED TV in question i.e. sound problem, non-functioning of the camera, non-functioning of the voice search function and bad picture quality.  Time and again these defects were brought to the notice of the OPs. Their engineers had come, but, the problems could not be resolved, though the OPs had denied except for one visit of which the job sheet has already been referred to.   We will refer to Annexure C-3 dated 3.5.2017 vide which the notice was issued that the LED TV had creaking noise problem from day one and camera was not working and complaint was also lodged in March 2017.  It was sent by speed post through Annexure C-4.  These do not seem to be created documents as the problem in the LED TV with regard to sound, picture and camera is visible even with the naked eye by even a layman who has sense of sight and sense of hearing.  We do not feel in such a situation report from an expert is required in this piquant situation.”

16.           Once deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellants/opposite is established, in our opinion, the Forum rightly ordered them to replace the LED TV, in question, with a new one of the same make/model, with 30 days from the date of passing of the order upon return of the old LED TV, failing which the appellants/opposite parties were made liable to refund the invoice value to the respondent/complainant.

17.           It may be stated here that as stated above, Counsel for the appellants at the time of admission of the appeal, stated that actual amount paid for the TV, in question, by the respondent/complainant was in the sum of Rs.1,02,600/- as is evident from the invoice dated 20.10.2016, whereas, the District Forum, in the event of non-replacement, ordered refund of an amount of Rs.1,12,400/-. We have perused the invoice dated 20.10.2016 (Annexure C-1), which is in computer generated form. The price of the LED TV, in question, is clearly mentioned as Rs.1,12,4000/-. Therefore, the contention of the appellants/opposite parties that it was Rs.1,02,600/- is rejected being devoid of any merit. 

18.           Now coming to the second limb of argument that the compensation awarded by the Forum vide the impugned order to the tune of Rs.30,000/- is on the higher side, we are not impressed with the argument raised. No doubt, the respondent/complainant suffered immense harassment and mental agony at the hands of the appellants/opposite parties. She, an old lady, was made to run from pillar to post for rectification of the defects in the LED TV purchased, which are still existing and not cured to her entire satisfaction. Looking at her sufferance, we are of the considered opinion, that the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Forum, is adequate to meet the ends of justice. As such, the argument raised stands rejected.

19.           No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties.

20.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

21.           No other point was raised by the Counsel for the parties.

22.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

23.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

24.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

19.12.2018.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad