BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 147/2016 Filed on 21.03.2016
ORDER DATED: 31.10.2019
Complainant:
Basheer, Kaithakonam House, Kattakada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 572.
(By Adv. Ravikrishnan N.R.)
Opposite parties:
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, No. A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.
- The Proprietor, Madonna Sales and Services, T.C 3/121-10 & 11, Op: M.G. College, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
(By Adv. R. Chandrapraveen)
This case having been heard on 02.07.2019, the Forum on 31.10.2019 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant purchased a Sony Bravia 55W950B full HD 3D smart LED television on 01.09.2015 from Sony Centre, Pattom for Rs. 1,64,000/-. The said television was installed at his house on 04.09.2015. But to the surprise of the complainant the said television became dead within one week and the complainant informed the Sony centre from where the television was purchased about the defect occurred to the television. They directed the complainant to the 2nd opposite party and on 17.09.2015 a service personnel came to the house of the complainant and informed him that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- will be required to repair the television set. The complainant requested that as the television worked for only a week he is not willing to get the same repaired as he believed that the same is having serious manufacturing defect. So he requested to replace the defective set with a new one of the same model. The service personnel informed the complainant that the said model is out of stock and the spare is also not available and he told the complainant that the only way available for him is to exchange the set with a new model having a higher price of Rs. 2,04,000/- only by paying the difference amount of Rs. 40,000/- additional. As there was no other option available to the complainant he agreed with the said condition and when the service personnel was about to take the defective television back with him the complainant prevented him from taking the same saying that the said television will only be allowed to take back if the new television is installed. The service personnel of the 2nd opposite party went back and informed the complainant that they have received a confirmation letter from the 1st opposite party through its executive, customer relations-Bangalore vide a letter dated 28.09.2015 wherein the 1st opposite party has offered to provide the complainant with a New Bravia at “difference in MRP”. The difference in the MRP is calculated as Rs. 40,000/- and the same was handed over to the 2nd opposite party vide a demand draft in favour of the 1st opposite party dated 03.10.2015. On 29.10.2015 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party issued an invoice in which it was shown that a new model is going to be delivered to the complainant and the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 40,000/- only as per the agreement between them. The new set was delivered on 04.11.2015 and on the same day itself the old set was taken back by official concerned of the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter the complainant inspected the document and was surprised to note that in the invoice given to him by the opposite parties, the price of the new television is shown as Rs. 1,78,951.97 as the unit price instead of Rs. 2,04,000/- as promised by the opposite parties. The amount deducted from the price of the new television from that of the old television is shown as Rs. 1,44,017.44 instead of Rs. 1,64,000/- as per the agreement of the opposite parties in connection with the exchange. The opposite party has collected more amount from the complainant after supplying a television having less price and thus had deceived the complainant that too after making an agreement. The opposite party has issued a television having its unit price as Rs. 1,78,952/- and has deducted Rs. 1,44,017/- instead of deducting Rs. 1,64,000/-. So as per the agreement of exchange entered between the complainant and the opposite parties, the complainant is only liable to pay an amount of Rs. 14,952/- (Rs. 178952 - Rs. 1,64,000). Even though the complainant informed about the price difference to the 2nd opposite party he was not at all ready to give proper explanations to the complainant and on the other hand misbehaved with the complainant. This is clear cheating adopted by the opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has paid such a huge amount for purchasing the television and after the same from 10.09.2015 to 04.11.2015 the complainant was not able to enjoy the television as in between those dates the television was not working. Hence this complaint.
Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version contending as follows: The complainant had purchased a television in the brand name of Sony model No. Sony KDL-55W950B on 01.09.2015. Thereafter the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 18.09.2015 with an issue of 5 time blinking in the said television. Thereafter, on inspection by the service engineers of the opposite parties it was found that the panel was defective. However, due to the customer oriented policy the said television was replaced by the opposite parties with model KD-55X8500C as the set was under warranty period. As the set failed within one month of purchase and as there was no stock of the complainant’s model with the opposite parties, the defective product was replaced with the upgraded model by collecting the difference amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant. However, the complainant has not returned the defective set and alleged that the invoice price is different and the opposite parties are cheating the complainant by demanding the balance amount is vehemently wrong and denied. The complainant with the sole intention of tarnishing the reputation of the opposite parties and for wrongful gain has filed a false and fabricated case against the opposite parties. Hence dismiss the complaint with cost in favour of opposite parties.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked on his side. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed chief affidavit. But opposite parties not present for cross examination. Complainant filed argument notes.
Issues to be considered:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
(ii) If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues (i) & (ii):- We perused the relevant documents on record. Ext. P1 shows that the price of Sony Bravia 55W950B is Rs. 1,64,895/-. The allegation of the complainant is that he purchased a Sony Bravia for an amount of Rs.1,64,000/-. Ext. P3, the original buyer’s copy in the name of complainant, shows that the total amount before discount is Rs. 1,78,951.97, Discount Rs. 1,44,017.44, Total amount after discount Rs. 34,934.53, tax payable Rs. 5,065.51, Grand total Rs. 40,000/-. Ext. P4 is the copy of cheque in the name of 1st opposite party for Rs. 40,000/-. In Ext. P3 the unit price of the new television is shown as Rs. 1,78,951.97 instead of Rs. 2,04,000/- as promised by the opposite parties. The amount deducted from the price of the new television as the price of the old television is only Rs. 1,44,017.44 instead of Rs. 1,64,000/- as per the agreement of the opposite parties in connection with the exchange. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties. So the opposite parties had collected more amount from the complainant after supplying a television having less price and thus had deceived the complainant, that too after making an agreement. According to the complainant the agreement was to pay an additional amount of Rs. 40,000/-which is the difference between the MRP of the defective television ie. Rs. 1,64,000/- and Rs. 2,04,000/-. But here the opposite parties had given a television having its unit price as Rs. 1,78,952/- and has deducted only Rs. 1,44,017/- instead of Rs. 1,64,000/-. So as per the agreement of exchange the complainant is liable to pay only an amount of Rs. 14,952/-. Even though the complainant informed about price difference, the 2nd opposite party was not at all ready to give proper explanation to the complainant. The complainant had paid a huge amount for purchasing the television and the complainant was not able to enjoy the television as it was not working. In Ext. P2 the letter from opposite parties it is stated that “However as a gesture towards customer support to restore you faith on Sony product we had offered you to exchange your existing Bravia with the new Bravia at difference in MRP”. It also shows the defects of the television of the complainant. The opposite parties had not produced documents to prove their case. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,048/- (Rs. 40,000/- - Rs. 14,952/-) as the excess amount and pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the above amounts except cost carries interest @ 6% per annum from the date of default till realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of October 2019.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 147/2016
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Basheer
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of document showing price of the TV
P2 - Copy of letter dated 28.09.2015
P3 - Copy of original buyer’s copy dated 29.10.2015
P4 - Copy of cheque for Rs. 40,000/-
P5 - Copy of delivery chalan dated 04.11.2015
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
