Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/962/2022

RAJESH ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA PVT LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/962/2022
Date of Institution	:	12/12/2022
Date of Decision	:	06/12/2023

 

Rajesh Arora S/o Late S.M.L. Arora, House No.157, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., through it’s Managing Director A-18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
2. M/s Techno Care through it’s Owner (Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Service Centre), SCO 128-129, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160034.

… Opposite Parties

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

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Naveen Vig, Authorized Representative of Complainant.
	:	OPs ex-parte.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased LED TV at a price of Rs.2,25,000/- in the year 2014 from the OPs. At the time of purchase that the proper service will be provided for the period of next 15 years. Thereafter, the said TV went out of order and complaint was lodged with the service centre of OP No.2. The service engineers of the OPs visited the house of complainant for repair of the TV in question and charged a fee of Rs.684/-(Annexure-1). Upon inspection by the authorized person of OP No.2, it was observed that the board is faulty and needs to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the product i.e., LED TV. The OPs on 28.09.2022 admitted that they are unable to comply with the request of service for the said product (Annexure C-2). On 6.10.2022 from OPs were received showing their inability to arrange the necessary part i.e., main board for service and repeatedly asking for alternative solution i.e., exchange of LED TV with new one (Annexure C-3). The complainant wrote an email to OPs that he is not interested for the offer and asked to repair the same. Moreover, the OP’s neither removed the defect nor replaced the TV till date. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OPs despite following proper procedure, therefore they were proceeded ex-parte on 17.02.2023.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.     We have heard the authorized representative of complainant and gone through the record of the case.

 

5.     On perusal of complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that the TV purchased (9 years old) by him could not be repaired by the OPs, even when he is willing to pay for the part repairs/replacement.
6.     On perusal of Annexure-1, it is observed that the TV in question was asked for repairs on 23.09.2022 and payment of Rs.684/- was made to the OP’s. It is also observed that the OP’s could not repair the same due to non-availability of the spare part i.e., board which was found to be faulty.
7.     Significantly, OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the OPs shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.     We are of the view since the TV could not be repaired by the OP’s even on payment basis being out of warranty and TV is expected to be having shelf life of 10 years, the OPs are found to be deficient in providing the service. By not repairing or not refunding the purchase price after necessary depreciation, the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice.   
9.     In view of the above discussion, we order for the refund of the purchase price after deductions of necessary depreciation. Since, TV in question is 9 years old & expected shelf life is expected for 10 years, as the electronics technology development is taking place at a faster pace, hence, it would be reasonable if for every year 10% is worked towards depreciation i.e., for usage of 9 years 90% of depreciation of TV can be reasonably worked out. Hence, only 10% cost of the TV needs to be refunded.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund an amount of ₹22,500/- (₹2,25,000-90% of cost towards depreciation charges) to the complainant. The complainant shall, however, return the LED TV in question to the OPs.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 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.
12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
06/12/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member