Sony India Ltd Regional Office V/S R.Rajeshkumar S/o.C.R.Kumar - Consumer Court Case

Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/152/2017

R.Rajeshkumar S/o.C.R.Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Ltd Regional Office - Opp.Party(s)

M/s..Giridhar & sai

25 Nov 2021

ORDER

Complaint presented on : 15.09.2014

Date of disposal : 25.11.2021

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L. : PRESIDENT

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L. : MEMBER

C.C. No.152/2017

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 25^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

K.Rajesh Kumar,

S/o. C.R.Kumar,

No.19,New 13, Natesa Mudali Street,

Varaharajapuram, Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 053. .. Complainant. ..Vs..

1.Sony India Ltd.,

The Regional Head,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

No.1/43, Hamedia Complex, Second Floor,

(Near Feather Light Showroom)

Oxford Book Store)

Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 034.

2.Sony India Ltd.,

The Service Manager,

Rep. by its Manager,

Service Centre,

Shop No.2, Door No.54, Ground Floor,

Wellington Estate Salai,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3. Shah’s Co.,(P) Ltd.,

The Proprietor,

Rep. by its Director,

W-104, 2^nd Avenue,

Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

.. Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant : M/s.Giridhar & Sai

Counsel for the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties : M/s.F.John Joseph

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party : Ex – parte (29.11.2017)

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to issue direction to the opposite parties for payment of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to complainant on rendering the negligence of services by the opposite parties to the complainant for purchase of Television model No. SONLC 32 SONY LCD 32B X 320 vide Bill No.AN151.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant had purchased the LCD TV in the brand of 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties owned “SONY”in the style and model of SONLC 32 SONY LCD 32 B 320 and the same purchased in the showroom of third opposite party who the dealer of the product of 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. The said television was purchased on 06.04.2012 vide bill No.AN151 dated 06.04.2012 at the cost of Rs.26,900/- with all taxes included. After the purchase within 3 months back there is a manufacturing defect that said Television display has not appears, that the complainant prefer a intimation to 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party had sent a engineer and service the fault, but not rectified completely and again the same problem in the display has been happened on the month of November 2012, but the same the complainant had given the 2^nd complaint to 2^nd opposite party vide complaint ID.NO.16578030, that the 2^nd opposite party had sent a service engineer as designation Executive Engineer and after the investigation of the fault, he asked the complainant for submission of the purchase bill and the same to mail to the office of the 1^st opposite party. But there is no response about the complainant’s complaint and again the complainant submit the another complaint vide No. 16867896, but the same there is no response about the complainant’s complaint and the complainant’s grievance has not compiled and the fault of television has not rectified so far. The complainant had submits the complaint before 3^rd opposite party, but the 3^rd opposite party had replied that after the sales, that 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are only responsible. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not taken necessary steps to rectify the fault in the television. The complainant grievances has not fulfilled and there is negligence of services rendered by the opposite parties. The complainant suffered mental agony. After repeated remainders made out by the complainant that non performance is amounts to negligence of services rendered to the complainant by the opposite parties. Hence all the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation for negligence of services and to pay the damages to the complaint. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE 1^st & 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The opposite party No.1 i.e., Sony India Pvt Ltd. is a “Company” incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The opposite party No.2 is the Authorized Service Centre of the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.3 is the Authorized Dealer of the opposite party No.1 respectively. The complainant had purchased a Television in the brand name of Sony, model no. KLV-32BX320, bearing Serial No.7120998 on 06.04.2012 from the opposite party no.3 with one (1) year warranty period. The complainant used the said TV set for 6 months without any problem and to his full satisfaction as no complaint/service request of any nature was ever received by the answering opposite parties till 06.10.2012. The complainant approached the answereing opposite parties with the first Service Request vide Job Sheet

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost?

3. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled?

4. POINT NO :1& 2

The 1^st opposite party is a company manufacturing Sony Televisions. The 2^nd opposite party is a authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party and 3^rd opposite party is the authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party. There is no dispute between both the parties that the complainant had purchased a Television in the brand name of Sony, Model No.KLV-32BX320 bearing serial No.7120998 from the 3^rd opposite party on 06.04.2012. Ex.A1 is the copy of receipt issued by the 3^rd opposite party on 06.04.2012.

05. The defect in the TV started in the month of July 2012 and for the second time problems started in the month of November 2012. Therefore the cause of action arose for filing the complaint arose in the month of November 2012. The complainant filed this complaint before this commission on 31.10.2014 that is within two years from the date of cause of action. Therefore this complaint filed in time.

06. The complainant alleged that within three months from the date of purchase the said television started problem and there is manufacturing defect in the TV, that display has not appears and therefore the complainant in the month of July 2012 intimated the same to the 2^nd opposite party and 2^nd opposite party had send a engineer to rectify the defects but same has not been rectified completely and therefore the complainant in the month of November 2012, had given another complaint in ID NO.16578330 to the 2^nd opposite party, but there is no response and the complainant submit another complaint in ID No.16867896 but there is no response and therefore the opposite parties committed negligence in service and the same caused mental agony to the complainant.

07. The opposite parties in their written version admitted that on 06.10.2012 the complainant raised a complaint stating red led blinking (three times blinking) and 2^nd opposite party vide job sheet No.J21138949 registered the request and service engineer after inspection found there was static converted problems and static converted of the said TV was replaced on free of cost. Since, the TV said was under the warranty period. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties further contended that on 18.11.2013 the complainant approached for the issue of lines screen, the service engineer of the opposite parties inspected the TV and found that the panel defective sand same needed to be replaced and since warranty of the said TV expired on 05.04.2013 the complainant has to pay the cost of panel. But the complainant refused to pay the cost. Therefore there is no negligent on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

08. The complainant being the Consumer approached the 2^nd opposite party for several times to rectify the defect in the television set. The 2^nd opposite party admitted there was defect in the TV and defect is in the static and same was replaced on free of cost within the warranty period. The complainant alleged the defects in the TV started from the month of July 2012 then November 2012 within the warranty period but the opposite parties has not rectified the defect fully. On the other hand the 1 & 2 opposite parties contended the first defect started on 06.102012 and subsequently on 18.11.2013. On perusal of the averments of the complainant and contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2, it is seen there is defect in the television purchased by the complainant from the 3^rd opposite party. The opposite parties in their written version admitted that they are ready to rectify the defects on free of cost as a good will gesture. Hence the opposite parties also admitted the defects. It is the duty of the opposite parties 1 & 2 to rectify the defects on free of cost. But, the opposite parties 1 & 2 failed their duties. The attitude of opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and same caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Therefore, there is deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and complainant is entitled for compensation and cost.

09. The 3^rd opposite party is a dealer and no way responsible for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 and therefore the complaint against opposite party 3 liable to be dismissed.

10.POINT NO:3