DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of December, 2023.
Filed on: 03.01.2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No.9/2022
COMPLAINANT
A.S Janardanan, Sudha Sadanam, Kaprasery, Nedumbassery P.O, Pin-683585
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Sony India (P) Ltd.,Pottekkattu Building, HMT Road, HMT Colony P.O, Pin-683503.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President:
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant
purchased a Sony Home Theatre System, model HBD 880 SL with the serial number 3307274. Shortly after, the system failed to read CDs, prompting the customer to seek repairs at an authorized Sony service center. Despite surrendering the system along with its remote control to the service center on May 4, 2019, the repairs have yet to be completed. Repeated attempts by the customer to contact the service center have been unsuccessful. Consequently, the customer seeks to have the home theatre system repaired to function properly and to read CDs. Furthermore, the customer, now pursuing legal action, requests compensation for the expenses incurred due to this issue.
2) Notice
The Commission sent a notice to the opposite party, but despite accepting the notice, the opposite party did not submit their version. Consequently, they are set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed 3 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A3.
Exhibit A-1: Copy of service job sheet.
Exhibit A-2: Copy of the Invoice.
Exhibit A-3: Copy of the Adhar Card.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Copies of the service job sheet and Invoice. The receipt evidencing payment to the opposite party (Exhibits A-1 and A2). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version despite having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
A. Maintainability of the Complaint:
The complainant, as defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, qualifies as a consumer since they purchased goods for a consideration and presented copies of the service job sheet and Invoice (Exhibits A-1 and A-2) as evidence of the transaction. Therefore, the complaint is maintainable.
B. Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice:
The complainant's case is supported by the unchallenged evidence presented, which includes the service job sheet and invoice. (Exhibits A-1 and A-2). These documents establish that the complainant purchased the Sony Home Theatre System and subsequently faced issues with it. Despite surrendering the system for repairs at an authorized Sony service center, the repairs remain incomplete, and the complainant's attempts to contact the service center have proven fruitless.
The opposite party, despite being served notice, failed to submit their version and thus stands ex-parte. This failure amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them, and their conduct implies a conscious disregard for their responsibilities.
C.Entitlement to Relief:
Given the unchallenged evidence and the acknowledgment of the opposite party's failure to provide service, the complainant is clearly entitled to relief. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, upholds the rights of consumers to receive products and services that meet the standards of quality and performance as promised. In this case, the opposite party has clearly failed to fulfill its obligation to repair the home theatre system in a timely and effective manner, leading to a deficiency in service and causing mental agony to the complainant.
We determine that Issues I to IV are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardship, and financial loss as a result of the negligence of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall repair and return the home theatre system, ensuring it functions properly to the satisfaction of the complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation for the losses and damages caused by the negligence of the service centre, since there is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party is liable for complying with the directions specified in this judgment. This compliance shall be executed by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Failing this, the amounts ordered according to points (ii) above shall attract interest at 9% per annum, accruing from the date of filing this complaint (03-01 2022) until the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of December, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1: Copy of service job sheet.
Exhibit A-2: Copy of the Copy of the Invoice.
Exhibit A-3: Copy of the Adhar Card.
Opposite party’s evidence
Nil
kp/
Despatch date:
By hand:
by post:
C.C. No. 9/2022
Order date: 27/12/2023
