| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO. CC/328/2019 Date of Institution:- 26.08.2019 Order reserved on:- 21.03.2023 Order Pronounced on :- 01.04.2023 IN THE MATTER OF: - Sarfaraz Ahmad
S/o Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Q-20, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi - 110025 ....Complainant VERSUS - Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Managing Director Mr. Sunil Nayyar A-18, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 110044 - M/s F1 Info Solutions and Services Pvt. Ltd.
208, 2nd Floor, Ashok Bhawan, 93, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019 - Boscos Private Ltd.
A-6, F.I.E.E. Complex, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi - 110020 …..Opposite Parties O R D E R Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member - Aggrieved by the OP's inaction to resolve his grievance regarding his TV, which he alleges was defective, the Complainant filed the present complaint before this Commission U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the Complainant purchased a TV Model No. Sony Bravia-KLV-40R 428B on 31.10.2014 from OP-1 paying the consideration of Rs. 47,000/- to the dealer, i.e. OP-1 for the same. The Complainant has annexed the copy of the Invoice with his complaint as (Annexure-C1). The Complainant alleges that the purchased TV was defective when he purchased it, and he lodged several complaints with the customer Care of OP-1, which are annexed with the complaint as (Annexure-C2).
- The Complainant states that the TV had gone to the service centre ofOP-1 twice in 2015 and 2016, and the panel was replaced. The Complainant was told that the main board was replaced on the second repair. Alleging manufacturing defect, the Complainant states that the LCD TV again became defective in May 2018 when it was sent to OP-3, who collected the TV and revealed that the main board had to be replaced.
- Instead, OP-3 told the Complainant that they had repaired the mini part of the TV on payment basis. Again in July 2018, the TV stopped working with the same problem. On 04.07.2018, the Complainant lodged the complaint with OP-1, who deployed OP-3 to solve the issue in the Complainant's TV.
- After investigation, OP-3 informed the Complainant that the TV set's motherboard had to be replaced for the consideration amount of Rs. 5641/-. The Complainant also learned about several users of his TV model lodging complaints with OP-1, due to which OP-1 had discontinued the sale of the said model (Annexure-C4 colly).
- Vide letter dated 08.08.2018, OP-1 informed the Complainant that the motherboard needed to be replaced, but due to the non-availability of the main board, a mini part of the main board would be attempted to be repaired. This repair was unsatisfactory, which he noted down on the job sheet dated 22.9.2018, asking for the replacement of his allegedly defective TV.
- On 13.10.2018, the Complainant's TV again stopped working. The technician from OP-3 visited the Complainant's residence on 20.10.2018 but left shortly after informing the Complainant that his TV would be collected for repairs. When no action was taken byOP-3, the Complainant again lodged a complaint on 11.12.2018 and then again on 17.12.2018. The Complainant admitted that the technician of OP-2 had visited but had to leave as there was no electricity in his residence. He further states that OP-3 called him asking him to deposit the amount of Rs 18,500/- after which the TV would be collected, which he informed to OP-1 as well.
- Finally, on 22.12.2018, OP-3 collected his defective TV, informing the Complainant that the main board and panel of the TV required replacement, towards which the Complainant would need to pay the cost of Rs. 18,500/-. The Complainant was surprised as OP-1 & 2 had e-mailed an estimate of Rs 5641/- approximately. The Complainant told OP-1 about OP-3 charging a higher amount for the same defect. He also paid the pick-up and drop charges of Rs 600/- (Annexure- C7).
- On 3rd January 2019, OP-3 contacted the Complainant, and he was told that only the main board was faulty and required replacement, but due to the non-availability of the part, OP-3 had sent the TV set to the head office, i.e. OP-1. Since the OPs had failed to repair the TV, they offered a 25% discount on the replacement of a new TV which the Complainant denied vide his e-mail dated 15.01.2019.
- The Complainant was further shocked when OP-1, on 26.2.2019, sent an e-mail that the TV had been repaired and requested the Complainant to collect the same from the office of OP-3 despite the Complainant having paid the pick-up and drop charges to the OP-3 at the time of pick-up (Annexure C3 Colly). He, however, received a letter from OP-2 dated 01.08.2019.
- The Complainant also states that he and his family faced embarrassing questions and humiliation at the hands of his neighbours due to their defective TV, which caused him and his family severe mental agony, pain, and loss of reputation and goodwill. Despite repeated attempts, when the Complainant could not get his defective TV repaired, he issued a legal notice dated 19.6.2019 to the OPs to no avail (Annexure-C5 Colly). Instead of the Op's making efforts to address his grievance, he received a letter from OP-2 dated 029.07.2019 admitting that the television of the Complainant had been lying with the OP-2 since 25.12.2018 (Annexure -C6).
- Aggrieved with the OP's lackadaisical attitude, the Complainant, therefore, filed the present complaint praying for directions to the OPs to pay him a sum of 4,97,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum as per his calculations given in para 17 of his complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. OP-3 was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2020 when OP-3 did not appear despite adequate service. Ld. Counsel Mr. Amit Kumar Thakur appeared for OP-1 & 2 on 30.09.2019 and accepted the notice on behalf of OP-1 & 2; however, did not file any reply, and hence OP's 1 and 2 were also proceeded Ex-parte on 07.01.2020 in the first call. Later on, Mr. Amit Kumar Thakur appeared and filed a reply.
- Vide order 06.03.2020, the Reply filed by OP-1 and 2 was taken off the record as per the following order as noted by our Ld. Predecessors:-
"On the last date of hearing, in the first call we have proceeded the OP-3 Ex-parte. However, OP-1 & 2 both have filed the Reply on subsequent occasions on the same date as the Forum does not have any source to recall the proceedings. Hence, OP-1 & 2 reply is taken off from the record". - Hence, the Reply of OP-1 & 2 was taken off the record, after which the Complainant filed his affidavit in evidence. In his deposition, the Complainant reiterated the averments he had made in his complaint and filed a 65-B Certificate. Thereafter, he filed his written arguments and several judgments of the Hon'ble State Commission and other District Commissions to support his complaint. The present complaint was pending for final arguments, which were heard today when the Complainant appeared in person.
- We have heard the Complainant and carefully pursued the documents he placed on record to corroborate his claim. None appeared for the OP's who are Ex-parte.
- In our view, the Complainant purchased a Sony Bravia-KLV-40R 482B television on 31.10.2014 from OP-1, paying a sum of Rs 47,000/-. OP-1 issued a tax invoice towards the said purchase (Annexure C-1). The Complainant alleges that his TV was not working adequately since he bought it from OP-1. He was constrained to repeatedly lodge complaints with OP-1, who deputed OP-2 & 3, the authorized service centres of OP-1, to rectify the defects but failed to do so. When the defects persisted, and the TV was out of warranty in 2018, the Complainant was asked to pay an exaggerated sum to change the motherboard vide e-mail dated 15.01.2019 or replace his TV at a 25% discount as the parts were not available.
- The Complainant denied the offer seeking replacement of his TV vide e-mail dated 15.01.2019. OP-1 thus asked the Complainant to collect his repaired TV from OP-3 on 29.7.2019 despite the Complainant having paid the pick-up and drop charges to OP-3 (Annexure -C3 colly).
- The Complainant has filed all the documents to substantiate his contentions as made in his complaint. (Annexure-C1) is the Invoice issued by Op-1 at the time of purchase, dated 31.10. 2014. (Annexure C-2 colly) are the job sheets generated by Op-2 and OP-3 corresponding to the repair of his TV dated01.09.2018, 22.09.2018, 17.11.2018, 20.12.2018. (Annexure -C3 colly) is the correspondence exchanged between the Complainant and the OP. (Annexure -C5) is the legal notice issued to the OP. (Annexure -C6) is the copy of the letter dated 29.7.2019, and (Annexure- C7) is the printout of the delivery charges.
- Though OP-1 & 2 filed a reply, they were proceeded ex-parte in the first half of the day. The Ld. Counsel for Op-1 and 2 appeared later on and filed their Reply. However, this Commission did not have the authority to recall or review their order per the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Thus the Reply of OP's-1 and 2 was taken off the record as they had been proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 06.03.2020. Op-1 and Op-2 chose not to approach the Hon'ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, our appellate authority, to get this order vacated for reasons best known to them. Hence, all OPs are ex-parte.
- Since the OP's are ex-parte, the Complainant's testimony is unrebutted, and we have no reason to disbelieve the Complainant. However, a bare perusal of the job sheets that the Complainant has annexed with his complaint show that the issue of 'Auto on off' with his TV developed sometime in 2018, i.e., after approximately four years of purchase when the TV was out of warranty. All the e-mails annexed as correspondence reflect the year 2018 and 2019. There is no documentary evidence annexed by the Complainant to show that he was having any issue with the TV from the first day, as he has alleged in his complaint or that the panel was changed by the OPs as soon as he purchased the same.
- Undoubtedly, the Complainant was not satisfied with the service of the OPs as they repeatedly replaced the faulty parts in his TV but could not repair the same. The Complainant noted his dissatisfaction on the job sheet dated 22.09.2018 asking the OPs to replace his TV as he had been getting his TV repaired since Dec 2014. Again on 17.11.2018, the Complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the OP service as the issue was unresolved. On 08.08.2018, one Sh. Debashis Sen Gupta, Regional Customer Support for OP-1, wrote to the Complainant via e-mail that on inspection of the Complainant's TV, the engineer observed that the main board needed to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the product. The initial service estimate of Rs 6,251/- informed to the Complainant by OP-3 was solely based on the preliminary investigation of the set. The spare parts charges were on current prices and subject to change.
- From the e-mail communications annexed with the complaint and the job cards, it is clear that there were undoubtedly some defects with the Complainant's TV, which the OP, despite trying their utmost, could not rectify to the satisfaction of the Complainant. This, in our view, is tantamount to a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
- Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct the OPs to jointly and severally pay the Complainant a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for deficient service and mental agony and harassment he and his family suffered, including litigation cost.
- No other order as to cost.
- Order be given Dasti to all the parties.
- The file be consigned to the record room thereafter.
| |
