Haryana

Ambala

CC/151/2018

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                                    Complaint case no.        :  151 of 2018

                                                                    Date of Institution         :  14.05.2018

                                                                    Date of decision   :   18.04.2019

 

 

Avtar Singh Aged 46 Years, s/o  Sh. Bant Ram, r/o House No.29 Ganesh Garden, Near Ekta Vihar, Ambala Cantt-133001, Haryana

 

……. Complainant.

 

1. Sony India Pvt Ltd. A-18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044.

 

2. Tejasv Enterprises, Sony Authorised Service Centre, Shop No.14, Jail Land, Sector-01, Ambala City- 134002.

 

….…. Opposite parties.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                             Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Avtar Singh,  complainant inperson.

                   Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, counsel for OPs.

 

Order:         Smt, Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To replace  the TV set with a new one.
2. To pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. 
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
4.  

any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

Brief facts of the present complaint are that  the complainant  had purchased a Sony Bravia 3D-Android-LED TV, Model KDL-43W950C, on 10.11.2015 at the cost of Rs.73,000/-. After warranty period, complainant noted display related problem in the TV and to get rectified the said  problem, he approached the OP No.2. The technician of the OP No.2, visited the residence of the complainant and on examining the TV set, advised him to get the panel of the TV replaced to resolve the display problem. On inquiry about the cost of original panel and the procedure of replacement, the said technician apprised the complainant that the panel would be replaced at his residence and the actual cost of the panel could only be provided, after the service estimate. Accordingly, the complainant besides paying a fee of Rs. 200 towards home visit, had also paid Rs.230/- towards the cost of service estimate. The OP No.2 had provided the service estimate of Rs.27,727/- including service charge towards the replacement of defective panel with a new genuine panel. The complainant approved the said estimate and, went to  the OP No.2, to handover  the payment, the OP No.2, told him that for replacement of defective  display panel, TV had to be brought to the service centre. Initially complainant resisted, but when the OP insisted  that no extra amount would be charged from him for transportation of the TV, then he agreed to handover the TV to the OP No.2. He handed over the TV to the OP No.2, in good faith with the condition that the new panel received from the Sony Company should be opened in his presence, to which the OP No.2 agreed. Despite  complainant’s approval and receipt of advance payment of Rs. 27,727/-, the OP No.2, kept on lingering the replacement of the panel on one pretext or other. It is further stated that on 13.10.2017, the Op No.2 informed him that the panel has been replaced and they would install the TV at his residence on 14.10.2017. The complainant requested the OP No.2 to provide the original invoice, defective panel and original carton/packing of the new panel. On 14.10.2017, the technician of the OPs, visited his residence to install the TV and had provided a brown carton but did not provide the original invoice. After the replacement of the TV, the picture quality of the replaced panel was very poor. The date and place of manufacturing of the display panel and other specifications like model etc. were not mentioned on the packing . Because of the problem in the TV and attitude of Ops, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their joint written version wherein it has been stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. On merits, the OPs have stated that after the purchase of  the said TV, complainant for the very first approached the service center on 15.05.2017 raising  an issue of “Lines on Screen” of the said TV. The complainant approached the service center at a stage when the warranty period of the said TV had already expired, as such the warranty stood void as per warranty policy. The service center without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the TV. Upon inspection it was observed that the Display panel was faulty and the cause was external in nature, which could be due to the negligence of the complainant.  Thereafter, the service centre gave the estimate of expenditure for the replacement of the said part to the complainant.  On 05.08.2017 and 06.10.2017, complainant approached the service center and raised similar issue as it was raised on the previous two visits, but this time complainant realized the fact that the warranty period of the said TV had already been expired and approved the estimated cost of Rs.28,081/- After getting the approval from  the complainant, necessary repair was done and the defective display panel was replaced with the new one. The complainant also accepted the said TV after proper inspection and upto his satisfaction. But later on, after accepting the said TV, which was in perfect condition, the complainant started alleging false and frivolous allegations by saying that the replaced panel was not original. The present complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R-W-1/A  alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-6 and closed their evidence.  

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                 Complainant has submitted that he gave instructions to the OP No.2 to replace the display panel of his TV in his presence, but the OP No.2 replaced the same in his absence and the new installed display panel is not original. On the contrary the learned counsel for the OPs has submitted that the defective display panel of the TV in question was replaced with the original one. In branded TV the defective part(s) can only be replaced with the new part(s) of the same brand. TV of the complainant is of sony brand and the OP No.2 had replaced the defective display panel with the new one of Sony make. After replacement of the display panel, the TV of the complainant was working properly. Complainant never gave any instructions regarding replacement of the display panel in his presence and he has concocted  a false story just to grab money from them. In order       to prove this fact that the replaced display panel is not original, the complainant has not placed on record report of some expert and merely on the basis of the carton/packing, placed on record by the complainant, no inference can be drawn that the replaced panel was not original. Even no document has been placed on record by the complainant to show that he ever gave any instructions to the OP No.2, to change the display panel in his presence. Thus, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, it can easily be said that the complainant has failed to prove his case. Therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits. Consequently,  we dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :   18.4.2019

 

 

 

 

                              (Vinod Kumar Sharma)              (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

                                Member                     Member                       President