| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi – 110016 Case No.35/2019 MANISH JAIN 252, CHIRAG DELHI, NEW DELHI-110017. …..COMPLAINANT Vs. - SONY INDIA PVT LTD.
A-18, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE IND. ESTATE MATHURA ROAD, BADARPUR, NEW DELHI-110044. - SHUBH ELECTRONICS
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR C-I/207 Y, SCHOOL ROAD, HOLI CHOWK, SANGAM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110062. ALSO AT:- SHOP NO. 14 & 17, VAYUSENABAD, SHOPPING COMPLEX, AIRFORCE STATION, TUGHLAKABAD, NEW DELHI-110062. …….RESPONDENTS Date of Institution-12/02/2019 Date of Order- 02/05/2022. O R D E R RASHMI BANSAL– Member - The present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking refund of Rs. 28,900/- the cost of the television set along with interest and compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant along with interest to the tune of Rs. 5, 00,000 and Rs. 65,000 for litigation expenses on account of malfunctioning of the television set purchased by the complainant from the opposite party.
- OP1 is the manufacturer of the TV set in question and OP2 is the dealer of OP1. This is the case of the complainant that he had purchased one television set model number KLV32R302D serial number 4572069 from OP2 at the cost of Rs. 28,900 on 26th June 2016, cash memo exhibited as Ex. CW1/1, with one year warranty. Thereafter complainant purchased extended warranty for another 2 years on 26th June 2017 by paying Rs. 2500 from authorised service centre of Opposite Party no1. The warranty card is exhibited as Ex.CW1/2.
- It was the allegation of the complainant that within one month from the date of purchase, the said television set developed some problems and was automatically turned off and on though it has been operated in accordance with the printed instructions given by the Opposite Party.
- Complainant immediately lodged a complaint with Opposite Party detailing about the malfunctioning/ defect, explaining that said television set. The mechanic from the authorised service centre of the OP took away the television and returned back with the assurance that it is completely repaired. That after some days again the same defects had been noticed by complainant and upon persuasion, OP replaced the above said TV set with new one.
- Complainant stated that after some time the same defect appeared even in the replaced television set and on complaint, it was taken by OP and after for 10 days was handed over to the complainant with the assurance that television is completely repaired and the problems will not occur in future.
- However, the problem was not resolved and complainant was required to lodge complaint with OP1 and 2, off and on many times and requested for the replacement of the TV set. On 10/12/2018, upon complainant (ID number 51803814) of the complainant, the mechanic of OP taken the television set to the company and handed over to complainant after one week on 18.12.2018, but this time also, the issue remain unresolved. After 10 minutes of delivery of the TV set, the same problem appeared again and this time the television did not even switch on. Thereafter the complainant again registered a complaint vide ID number 51929865 and till date the television set is lying in the service centre and the company after many reminders is not replacing the television. The E-mails written by complainant to OP are exhibited as Ex. CW1/3. (colly) and the screenshot of complaint ID as Ex.CW1/4. (Colly).
- The complainant is alleging that the opposite party by their act and conduct rendered deliberate deficient services by selling a defective television set to the complainant and adopted unfair trade practice with mala-fide intention resulting in harassment and humiliation to the complainant and also caused great mental tension and agony.
- OP chose not to appear despite service and was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 28th August 2019. Complainant has filed Ex-party evidence and written argument in support of his case.
- We have perused the document place on record and heard the arguments of complainant.
- The document on records shows that complainant has written 7 emails to OP from 05.06.2017 to 20.12.2018, continuously asking OP for the replacement of TV set alleging that the TV set given to him is defective. The OP neither chose to appear before this forum nor factum of defect in TV set is denied by them in response to any email written to them by complainant. The last email dated 20.12.2018 even acknowledged by OP vide its email dated 21.12.2018, reverting that they are asking their support team to immediately look into the matter and expedite resolution at the earliest.
- However, Complainant failed to show that TV set has been taken by OP on or after 18.12.2018. Neither the last email dated 20.12.2018 of complainant written to OP mentioned anything to that effect nor any evidence or document has been placed on record to show that TV set has been taken by the OP service personal after 18.12.2018 and is still lying with OP, as alleged by complainant. The email dated 20.12.218 of the complainant simply mentioned that that TV set has been returned to him on 18.12.2018, which after 10 minutes has again developed / shown the same problems as he has been facing, and has lodged a complaint with OP within 10 minutes of the delivery of the TV set to him by OP, without any reference that TV set has been taken by OP, rather it was mentioned, that complainant is receiving no response from OP till that time. There is also no job card or any note or any receipt or any comment from the service centre of OP to the effect that TV set is in their custody. However, several complaints made by complainant to OP regarding malfunctioning of the TV set through email, SMS and customer care, and their acknowledgement by the OP shows that TV set was having some trouble in its performance.
- Therefore, in the light of above discussion, after given careful consideration to entire matter, after hearing the ex-parte arguments of the complainant, and upon appreciation of the documents placed on record to substantiate the claim, this Commission is of the considerate view that since the warranty is available to the complainant, he certainly has right to get his TV set function properly. The fact that the complainant had purchased the extended warranty from OP for a period of September 2017 to September 2019 and the defect reflected in the TV within the warranty period, also brings OP under obligation to repair the same. since a long time has been lapsed from 2018, the repairing of the TV set will not yield the desired result. Therefore, it is directed that the opposite party no.1 to refund the cost of the TV set after depreciation as per current value of the TV set of same specification, along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards harassment, mental torture and agony, and Rs. 2,500/- as costs of the proceedings provided complainant made TV set available to OP1 through its authorised service centre within one month from the date of the order. The Order shall be complied by OP within next 2 month thereafter, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. till the actual realisation of the amount.
- The file be consigned to the record room after providing copy of the order to the parties free of cost.
- The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases. The order be uploaded on the website www.confonet.nic.in
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT | |
