DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
P U R U L I A
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 44 of 2019
Date of filing: 2nd July 2019
Date of Order: 13th December 20 19
Complainant Opposite Party(s)
Debendu Das Karmakar 1. Sony India Private Ltd, represented by
S/o, Swapan Das Karmakar its authorized person, having its office at:
R/o, Chasapara, near Laxmi Mandir A-18, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate
Ward No. 17, P.O. Namopara, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110 044
Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723 101
2. Soni Authorised Service Centre
Represented by the Manager, having service
Centre at S.B.Gorai Road,
Ranagania para more (beside kaji Nazrul
University and Sukanto Maidan) P.O. Asansol
Dist. Paschim Burdwan,
Pin. 713 303 …………………….. Principal O.P.
3.K.C.Paul Electronics, represented by its
Proprietor, having place of business at,
Kalitola Lane, Chowk Bazar, Purulia
P.O. & Dist. Purulia,
Pin. 723 101 ……………Proforma O. P.
Present:
- Sri Gurupada Mondal, Hon’ble President
- Smt. Sangita Paul, Hon’ble Member
- Sri Rituraj Dey, Hon’ble Member
For the Complainants : P.Ray, Advocate
For the O.Ps. No. 1 : B.Ganguly, Advocate
Sri Gurupada Mondal, Hon’ble President
This is a case under Section 12 of C. P. Act filed by Dibendu Das against Sony India Private Limited and two others, praying for direction to the O.Ps. either
Contd….p/2
Dictated & corrected
Page-2
to replace the old defective TV Set free of cost or to refund the value of the TV Set, and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment mental and agony.
The case of the complainant in short is that on 05.12.2017 the complainant purchased a Sony LED TV set from pro O.P. No. 3 on paying consideration price of Rs. 25,000/- and to that effect the O.P. No. 3 issued tax invoice and delivered the said TV set. Thereafter the TV Set was installed at the house of the complainant and viewing the TV set but after the expiry of few months the complainant noticed that some problems were appearing in the said TV Set. It is further alleged by the complainant that the complainant lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purulia Region and an amicable mediation was held on 18.07.2018 and at that time the O.P. No. 3 disclosed that the change of panel or replacement along with refund of the value of the TV set within jurisdiction of O.P. No. 1. The complainant lodged a complaint before the O.P. No. 3 within warranty period highlighting the defect but the O.P. No. 2 failed to remove the defect of the TV set. Again the complainant on 20.05.2019 lodged one another complaint before the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices Purulia Region and at that time O.P. No. 2 and 3 were present on the amicable discussion on 12.06.2019 and during the amicable mediation then O.P. No. 2 and 3 flatly denied to replace the defective TV set or to refund the value of the TV Set.
Further case of the complainant is that the defect on the TV set appeared within the warranty period but the opposite party failed to remove the said defect and there was deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. and as such the complainant suffered mental pain and agony. Accordingly, the complainant has filed the instant case against the O.Ps. for necessary relief as specifically mentioned in the complaint petition.
Summons upon the O.Ps were duly served and then all the O.Ps. turned up before this Forum and jointly filed W/V in order to contest this case, denying all material allegations contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable.
Contd….p/3
Dictated & corrected
Page-3
Specific case of the O.Ps. in short is that the complainant purchased a Sony LED TV being Model No. KLV-32R412D IN5 having serial no. 4289423 on 05.12.2017 from O.P. No. 3 on payment of consideration price of Rs. 25,000/- after detailed demonstration of features functions and explaining along with warranty terms and conditions. According to the O.Ps. that O.P. No. 1 provided limited warranty of one year from the date of purchase along with other liabilities as per terms and conditions as provided under the warranty. After purchasing the complainant approached the service centre rising an issue of picture on the TV and the service centre without any delay attended the complainant and inspected the TV and found that the TV was working normally as per its specification. The complainant was informed about the same and was duly demonstrated in front of the complainant up to his satisfaction but the complainant approached the service centre on 20.07.2018 rising an issue of picture again and on the basis of the said complaint minor repair was done by replacement the panel free of cost and nothing was charged from the complainant. It is further alleged by the O.Ps. that on 02.05.2019 the complainant again approached before the service centre raising an issue of no power in the TV set and at that time the warranty was expired. But the person of service centre inspected the TV and observed that the board of the TV was required to replace and the O.P. informed the complainant as regards the cost of Rs. 7,187/- replacement of the board of the TV set but the complainant did not approve the said estimate raising an unreasonable demand and as such the O.Ps. cancelled the said job. The complainant again on 15.05.2019 approached the service centre over the issue of no picture plus red blinking in the TV and then the service centre upon inspection observed that the panel was required to replace for smooth and better running of the said TV and in the meantime the warranty period was expired. The O.Ps. further stated in the W/V that warranty period of the said TV was already expired and as such no free service could be given to the complainant but the complainant refused to accept the said service. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the O.Ps. prays for dismissal of the case with cost.
Considering the pleadings of both sides the following points are taken up in order to arrive at a conclusion.
- Is the complainant a consumer under the Provision u/s 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act?
Dictated & corrected
Page-4
- Has the Forum any jurisdiction to try this case?
- Has there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get award as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs is the complainant entitled?
Decision with reason
Point No. 1
It reveals to us that the complainant purchased a TV set from O.P. No. 3 on payment of consideration price of Rs. 25,000/- for some services and for his own use. Section 2 (1) (d) defines consumer…..“Consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promise or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”.
Therefore, the complainant purchased TV for payment of consideration price from the O.P. No. 3 for his own use. Therefore, as per provision of 2 (1) (d), the complainant is a consumer under the O.P. Hence, this point is decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 2
The head office of the O.P. No. 1 is situated in New Delhi. The O.P. No. 1 is a service centre at Asansol, O.P. No. 3 sold the TV to the complainant his office is situated at Purulia therefore, cause of action of this case started at Purulia. O.P. No. 3 is the dealer of O.P. No. 1 and as such it can be stated that O.P. No. 3 is the branch office of O.P. No. 1 and thus this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. The claim of the complainant is much less than pecuniary statutory jurisdiction of this Forum and as such this point is also decided in favour of the complainant.
Contd….p/5
Dictated & corrected
Page-5
Point No. 3, 4 & 5
All the three points are taken up together for the convenience of discussion as well as the points are related with each other.
Let us see as to whether the complainant is able to prove his case against the O.Ps.? Admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Sony LED TV from the O.P. No. 3 on payment of Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter, the said TV was installed at the house of the complainant. While the complainant and his family members were watching the TV they noticed problem that a Green light was appearing on the bar of the screen on the said TV set and then they lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director of Consumer and Fair Business Practices, Purulia Region on 20.06.2018 and the Consumer Affairs department fixed 18.07.2018 for amicable mediation and at that time O.P. No. 3 disclosed that the O.P. No. 2 changed the panel and the matter of replacement or refund of the TV set within jurisdiction of O.P. No. 1. According to the complainant that on the date of first complaint the TV set was within warranty period but the O.P. No. 2 failed to detect the defect of the TV set and again the complainant lodged one another complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purulia region and an amicable mediation was held on 12.06.2019, on the basis of the petition filed by the complainant dated 20.05.2019. and at that time O.P. No. 2 and 3 flatly denied to replace the defective TV set or to refund the amount which compelled the complainant to file the instant case. On the other hand the O.P. No. 1 to 3 alleged that the warranty period of the TV set was one year from the date of purchase and the liability of the O.Ps. is lied in accordance of the terms and condition of the warranty. According to the O.Ps. that the complainant first time approached before the service centre raising over the issue of picture of the TV and the service centre without any delay immediately attended the complainant, inspected the said TV and found that the TV was working normally as per specification and the same matter was informed to the complainant and a demonstration was given to the complainant up to his satisfaction and thereafter the complainant further approached the service centre on 20.07.2018 over the issue of picture again and a minor repair was done by replacing the panel with free of cost and nothing was charged from the complainant for replacement of the said
Contd….p/6
Dictated & corrected
Page-6
panel. The complainant also did not deny the service of the O.P. No. 1 as regards the replacement the panel free of cost. We find from the evidence on record that the complainant further approached the service centre over the issue of no power in the said TV and according to the complainant that the warranty period was already expired. And as such the service centre inspected the TV and observed that the board needed to be replaced and the complainant was directed to pay replacement cost of Rs. 7,187/- but according to the O.Ps. that the complainant did not approve the said replacement cost of the board of the TV and as such the service centre cancelled the job. We find from the evidence of the O.Ps. that the complainant again approached the service centre on 15.05.2019 over the issue of no picture plus red blinking of the said TV and the service centre through inspection observed that the panel required to be replaced for smooth functioning of the TV but the complainant demanded unreasonably for replacement of the TV by a new one.
It is evident from the evidence on record that the complainant approached the O.P. No. 2 as well as the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purulia Region and a negotiation was held to that effect and on the basis of said negotiation the O.P. No. 2 did minor repair of the said TV by replacing the panel free of cost.
The complainant further approached the service centre on 20.05.2019 with the issue of no power in the TV and at that time the O.P. no. 2 inspected the TV and informed the complainant to pay estimated cost of Rs. 7,187/- for replacement of the board and thereafter the complainant further approached the service centre on 15.05.2019 with the issue of no picture and red blinking. The O.P. has filed the warranty card before this Forum from where it reveals to us that the period of warranty of the said TV was given for one year and some articles were given warranty of two years. But in this case we find that the board of the TV was required to be replaced and the warranty was given for one year. Present defect of the TV occurred after one year from the date of purchase of the TV and as such the O.Ps. are not duty bound to replace or repair the said TV set free of cost. So, in this case the complainant is not entitled to get any order as prayed for. All the points are decided against the complainant.
Hence,
Contd….p/7
Dictated & corrected
Page-7
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed against the O.Ps. on contest without cost.
Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
Member President
