Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/65/2020

Harmanpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Corporation Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/65/2020
Date of Institution	:	05/02/2020
Date of Decision	:	07/08/2023

 

Ms.Harmanpreet Kaur D/o Lt. Sh.Amarjit Singh, R/o H.No.2110, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Sony India Corporation Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at A-18, Moh Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-11004 through Managing Director/Chairman.
2. Regional Head/Branch Manager Sony India Corporation Pvt. Ltd., having Regional branch office at 3^rd floor, Adarsh Mall, Plot No.50, Industrial a Business Park, Phase-2, Chandigarh-160002.
3. M/s Goel Brothers, SCO No.307, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through proprietor/partner.
4. Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.126-127, Sector 34 Chandigarh-160022 through its Proprietor/ Director/owner/Chairman MD.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Atul Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	OPs ex-parte.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased the Sony television from OP No.1 for a total sale price of Rs.3,26,000/- on 26.11.2018 (Annexure C-1). At the time of sale of the product in question, it was assured by the OP No.3 that the same is free from any manufacturing defect and has a warranty of one year from the date of purchase. A sum of Rs.25000/- in cash was also paid to the OP No.3 for two years extended warranty. However, product in question developed a spot on the display screen due to which the picture was distorting. The complainant made a complaint on the toll-free number of Sony India Corporation on 29.10.2019. Thereafter, OP No.4 visited the house of the complainant and checked the said television. The technician of OP No.4 informed the complainant that the television has to be taken to the service centre to ascertain the exact defect. The complainant allowed the said technician to take the above said television to their service centre in Sector 34, Chandigarh. On 12.11.2019 the technicians of OP No.4 returned the product in question of complainant and said that they have not been able to rectify the defect and that they have informed the company in this regard. However, on 21.11.2019 OP No.4 delivered another television set having different model to the complainant vide delivery dated 21.11.2019 against a model of television set purchased by the complainant for a total sale price of Rs.2,99,000/- (Annexure C-2). However, the complainant found that the television supplied to her was a lower model i.e., G-Series whereas the original television purchased by her was a higher model i.e., F-Series. It is also submitted that G-Series television available in the market for a sale price of Rs.2,34,900/-. the OPs had charged the excess amount of Rs.91,100/- from the complainant by wrongly showing the G-Series model supplied to her to be price at Rs.2,99,900/- (Annexure C-3). The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs (Annexure C-4), thereafter the OP No.1 in response to said notice wherein, the said OP flatly refused to comply the request of the complainant (Annexure C-5). Hence is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that upon reporting of display issue by the complainant, the service duly upgraded the TV without charging any cost. It is further submitted that the G series is the higher and latest as compared to F series. But the complainant claim of replacement with lower model is arbitrary and not maintainable. Therefore, the complainant has no right to raise any dispute at any stage after the letter of acceptance and satisfaction was given by the complainant to the TV set the new TV. Also, the price comparison is not correct, as the TV models undergo price variation and the prevailing MRP/market price of G series model would have been higher than F series. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OPs.
3.     The OPs were proceeded ex-parte on 16.09.2020 which was set aside on 06.07.2021. Thereafter, the OPs filed reply on 14.10.2021, but again due to non-appearance the OPs were proceeded ex-parte on 16.11.2022.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole case of the complainant is that when the product in question was purchased on 26.11.2018 and one complaint was raised on 29.10.2019, thereafter the product purchased was replaced by OPs on 21.11.2019 with another product of the low value. The complainant has alleged that it verified from the market and as per Annexure C-3. The OPs had charged the excess amount of Rs.91,100/- from the complainant by wrongly showing the product supplied to her to be of the higher price.
7.     Perusal of the file reveals as per the Annexure C-1, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,26,000/- to the OP No.3 on 26.11.2018. Admittedly, the product worked well approximately for one year and as per Annexure C-2 dated 20.11.2019, the substituted product was delivered and installed at the residence of the complainant. Thereafter, there is no job-sheet on record which shows that the alleged new product or even the old product was having any manufacture/inherent defect. So far as the question of Annexure C-3, the quotation by one Id Corporation is concerned, the same is not party to the present complaint for the purpose of verification of the facts. In our opinion such like comparison or survey or verification if was to be done by the complainant, it was her duty to get it done prior to the installation of the substituted brand new LED. The product is working satisfactorily and the original TV was replaced/exchanged at the premises of the complainant with her permission only on 28.11.2019. In our opinion, the complainant already used the old set approximately for one year and thereafter accepted the brand new substituted set. Hence, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
8.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
07/08/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member