Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/405/2017

E Vedhamanickam - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/s V Soundararajan,

16 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 17.11.2017

Date of Reservation      : 01.09.2022

Date of Order               : 16.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.405/2017

FRIDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Mr.E. Vedamanickam,

Plot No.13, 2^nd Main Road,

1^st Floor, Alwarthirunagar Annexe,

Valarasavakkam,

Chennai -600 087.                                                           ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

 

1.Sony India Pvt Ltd,

   Rep. by its Managing Director,

   Mr. Kenchiro Hibi,

   A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

  Mathura Road,

  New Delhi – 110044.

 

2.Sony Service Centre,

   Rep. by its Service Manager,

   No.44, Veerappa Nagar,

   2^nd Street (Behind Mega Mart)

   Alwarthirunagar,

   Chennai – 600 087.

 

3.Navkar Security Solutions, Represented by its

   Proprietor operating "Sony Center”,

   No.3, Arcot Road, Porur,

   Chennai 116.                                                      ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant                    : M/s. V.Sounder Rajan

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party             : M/s. RB Associates

Counsel for the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties   : Exparte

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to refund the cost of the TV being Rs.3,40,000/- and to pay interest of Rs.51,000/- calculated at 18% p.a and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and Rs.1,00,000/- for supplying defective TV set and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and expenses along with cost of Rs.10,000/-

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had purchased a Sony TV of Model KD 65X9350D for a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- on 19.11.2016. the 3^rd Opposite Party had delivered the TV set at the Complainant’s residence and installed the same. After 10 days the Complainant noticed that there were severe scratch marks on the screen and immediately the Complainant contacted the 3^rd Opposite Party and informed the same. The 3^rd Opposite Party had actually sold a demo piece instead of a brand new set. Understanding the gravity of the situation the 3^rd Opposite Party on 21.12.2016 brought a TV of the same model and took back the TV sold on 19.11.2016. Subsequently, vertical bar started appearing in the TV and the service personal had come to the Complainant’s residence and changed the panel of the TV on 4 occasions and inspite of that the problem recurred.  On 21.09.2017 the set was taken service person of the 2^nd Opposite Party. On 14.10.2017 the Complainant along with his son was called to the service centre and when they checked the TV they found that the vertical bars still continue in the TV and it was admittedly a manufacturing defect. The Complainant has been damped with the TV firstly with the demo piece and secondly a another substandard piece which was also not installed by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party which is the practice for brand new TV sets and a defective TV was supplied to the Complainant, which would constitute unfair trade practice and also deficiency of service. The Complainant had issued a legal notice dated 25.10.2017. The 2^nd Opposite Party had sent a rely on 31.10.2017, for which the Complainant by his counsel had sent a letter dated 04.11.2017. But there was non- compliance at the end of Opposite Party. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant had purchased one Sony BRAVIA KD-65X935D on 19.11.2016 form the 3^rd Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. The Complainant for the first time approached the service centre on 23.01.2017 raising a issue of vertical bar on the left side of the said LED. The service centre without any delay attended the complaint and replaced the panel of LED. Thereafter the Complainant approached the service centre on 12.07.2017 raising an issue of “whiteish” bar in the afore said LED. The service centre carried necessary inspection and found no trouble in the LED. The Complainant approached the service centre 18.09.2017 raising the issue of whiteish part in the said TV, the service centre replaced the panel of the LED and kept under observation. After it was made ready the service centre informed the Complainant to collect the same, but the Complainant refused to collect the TV and started raising unreasonable demands. The Complainant had sent a legal notice dated 04.11.2017, which was duly responded vide a reply dated 28.11.2017 and the 1^st Opposite Party as a goodwill gesture gave offers either to repair the TV set or for an exchange. Despite the said reply the Complainant is trying to derive undue benefits from the Opposite parties. The Complainant has not furnished any document which establishes the fact that the LED TV in question was having some manufacturing defect. In the absence of any strong proof the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8  were marked. The 1^st Opposite Parties submitted his Written Version and Proof Affidavit and on the side of 1^st Opposite Party Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked.

5.    The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even sufficient notice served on them and remained absent and set exparte.

 

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

        The Complainant had admittedly purchased a Sony TV, with model KD-65X9350D for a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- vide invoice dated 19.11.2016, as found in Ex.A-1. The contention of the Complainant was that after ten days of the purchase, he noticed scratch marks on the screen and when the Complainant contacted the 3^rd Opposite Party to his shock he came to know that the TV supplied   to him on 19.11.2016 was only  a demo piece. As per Ex.A2 the delivery challan dated 21.12.2016  the demo piece was replaced with another TV of same Model. After taking back the old LED TV an endorsement to that effect was made on the reverse side of the delivery challan dated 21.12.2016. Even the second set installed by the 3^rd opposite Party was not proper and vertical bar started appearing in the TV after few days of its installation, which was not rectified even after the change of the panel of the TV on four occasions. Hence the TV was taken by the 2^nd Opposite Party, but the problem continue to persists.

        The 1^st Opposite Party contended that they had attended the complaint made by the Complainant on 23.01.2017 and replaced the panel of LED.  Subsequently the Opposite Parties have attended the complaints of the Complainant, inspected the LED TV replaced the display panel and asked the Complainant to collect the same. However the Complainant refused to collect the TV.

        On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case hardly after a few days from the date of purchase, the Complainant had faced problem with the Sony TV purchased from the 3^rd Opposite Party. From Ex.A-2 the 3^rd Opposite Party had replaced the LED TV on 21.12.2016 purchased from 3^rd Opposite Party. Even the replaced TV was not working properly and the Opposite Party claimed to have replaced the display panel of the subsequent TV. In the above circumstances while the Sony TV supplied by the Opposite Parties had developed defect within the warranty period which was replaced in a few day and even the replaced TV was not found in a good condition reflects upon the quality of product supplied, which in our view that any good product would not develop such defects within a short time.  This happened not once but on so many occasions within a period of one year of its installation.

        On 28.11.2017 the 1^st Opposite Party claims that as a goodwill gesture the following two offers were made to the Complainant

a) Repair the current BRAVIA Model: KD-65X9350D free of cost

 

b) Exchange with Current Equivalent Model: KDKD-65X9350D free of cost

        Though the 1^st Opposite Party contend that the Complainant had not heeded to the offers of the 3^rd Opposite Party, which was made only on 28.11.2017, which is after the issuance of legal notice on 25.10.2017. The Complainant contended that as the TV given to the Opposite Parties was not returned, the Complainant and his family could not enjoy the programmes and daily news and hence he had purchased a new LG TV on 05.11.2017 as found in Ex.A-8. In view of the foregoing discussions the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are held liable for the deficiency in service for non-supply of a good television which was purchased at huge cost and thereby had caused serious mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3:-

        As discussed and decided in Point No.1 that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 had committed deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are liable to refund a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-, being the cost of the TV with 9% interest from the date of purchase and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service and mental agony along with a cost of  Rs.3000/-. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are directed  to refund a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh Forty Thousand Only)  being the cost of the TV with 9% interest from the date of purchase i.e., 19.11.2016 till the date of this order, and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service and mental agony along with a cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 16^th of September 2022..

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	19.11.2016	Retail invoice by the 3rd Opposite Party in favour of Complainant
Ex.A2	21.12.2016	Delivery Challan No,7738 issued by the 3rd Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant taking back Demo piece Sl.NO.4501109
Ex.A3	21.09.2017	Service Job Sheet of the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A4	25.10.2017	Legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A5		Post track consignment showing delivery of the consignment with the Opposite Parties
Ex.A6	31.10.2017	Back dated letter sent by the 2nd Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex.A7	04.11.2017	Reply sent by the Complainant in responses to the back dated notice of the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A8		Copy of cash Bill

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1	04.07.2011	Copy of the Board Resolution
Ex.B2	-	Copy of the Warranty Terms and Warranty Card
Ex.B3	19.11.2016	Copy of the Bill/Invoice
Ex.B4	25.10.2017	Copy of the letter by 1st Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex.B5	-	Copy of the reply dated 28.11.2017 to the Legal Notice dated 25.10.2017 by the Complainant

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT