Delhi

North East

CC/42/2017

DR. MUSARRAT ALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. (CO.) - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 42/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Dr. Musarrat Ali S/o Sh. Irtiza Ali R/o H.No. B-5, Gali No.8, New Brij Puri, Near Jagat Puri Police Station, Delhi-110051	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.             3.	Sony India Pvt. Ltd.(Co.) A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044   Infiniti Retail Pvt. Ltd.(ASC) (A TATA Enterprises) 201, Akruti Centre Point Next to Marol Telephone Exchange, MIDC, Andheri (East),Mumbai-400093   Chroma (Dealer) Plot No.53, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092	Opposite Party No.1             Opposite Party No.2         Opposite Party No.3

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF DECISION :

31.01.17 20.07.22 06.01.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

ORDER

     Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased an LED TV from Opposite Party No.3 Sony LED 102 cm bearing model no KLV-40R452A and serial no. 4337600 for a sum of Rs. 52,000/- vide retail invoice/cash memo no. 02A0890100127750 dated 08.01.14 with one year warranty and two years additional warranty. The Complainant stated that LED TV in question had some problems like sound and picture problems right from its purchase. On 04.07.16, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.2 service center for rectification of the problems in TV in question bearing complaint no. 214557. The Complainant called the Opposite Party No.2 several times and the official of Opposite Party No.2 assured the Complainant that their authorized service personal will visit the address of the Complainant but no one came. The Complainant stated that he had made various calls again to Opposite Party No.2 then their service personal visited on 11.07.16 and after inspection, he stated that the panel (main board ) is defective and that part is not available. The Complainant stated that he wants to replace the defective LED TV in question and the service personal gave him a no. of official of Opposite Party who gave him the assurance that the TV in question will be replaced soon. The Complainant again made phone calls to Opposite Party for replacement of his TV but they refused to repair or replace the TV in question. The Complainant submitted that the service personal admitted the defects in LED TV as panel defective, the service personal gave him the no. of his senior officer who advised him to contact the dealer to refund the price of his LED TV. The Complainant sends a written complaint through email dated 13.07.16 and a reply is received on the same date but not solved the grievance. The Complainant stated that he had again sent written complaints through email on various occasions but he did not get any satisfactory response from Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that the service personal of Opposite Party No.2 admitted the defects in the LED TV in question and he had visited the Opposite Party No.3 on various occasions but the Opposite Party No.3 failed to refund his amount or to replace the LED TV in question. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. It is prayed by Complainant to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs. 52,000/- i.e. the cost of TV in question with interest and Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation charges.

           Case of the Opposite Parties

2. Opposite Parties contested the case and filed common written statement. It is submitted that the Complainant had purchased the subject television in dispute on 08.01.14 from Opposite Party No.1. It is necessary to point out that the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties when the warranty on the subject television was expired i.e. after two and half year from the date of purchase.  It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have provided the Complainant with excellent services as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and the grievance of the Complainant had been resolved each and every time the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have replaced Board of the subject television after duly estimate paid by the Complainant. It is submitted that the present complaint for replacing the television and demanding compensation subject to the facts makes the complaint baseless, unsupported and infructous.
3. The relevant terms of warranty provided by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant is as follows:
4. “Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter, “Sony”) warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects during the period indicated in the section –“Valid up to” on product information page. This non-transferable warranty is only for the first endues on purchase from Sony Authorised Dealer. Sony Service Centres/Authorised Service Centres will repair the product on the terms and conditions below:
5. Clause 1- Warranty will be valid only when this Warranty Card and original purchase invoice are presented together for service.”
6. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have provided services to the Complainant as per the terms and conditions of the warranty even after the warranty period has been expired. The following are the details:

                 Sony Bravia, KLV-40R452AIN

             Serial No. 4337600

             DOP:08.01.14

             Purchase value:Rs. 52,000/-

 

Musarrat Ali, 9811382964   J61822557,30.07.2016, J.P. Electronics Complaint-No power, BA Board faulty Estimate shared with customer Rs. 6385/-, Estimate Approved, Repair Action-BA Board replaced, Set Delivered: 30.07.2016, Customer Paid: Rs. 6385/-   J62134452,01.09.2016,J.P. Electronics Complaint- No power, BA Board faulty BA Board replaced, Set Delivered 09.09.2016     Job Number: J71080073, 05.05.2017, Symptom: As per customer set goes off after some time Action taken: No Problem found, same explained to customer   It is pertinent to submit that the Opposite Parties have provided excellent services to the Complainant as per the terms and conditions of the warranty as and when the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties. A copy of the job sheets reflecting that the subject handset is out of warranty and there is no trouble found in the subject Television and Technical Inspection Report. It is further submitted that the Complainant had however refused to sign on the job sheets and has escalated the matter before the Hon’ble Forum without a substantive issue.  Further, the Complainant used the subject television for more than two and half years before he had even a single grievance. The grievance is also user induced. The same has been resolved even before the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties. It is necessary to point out that vide judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bharathi Kintting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. Air 1996 SC 2508 the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding that the terms of warranty were binding on the parties and that the liability under taken in contract between parties should be limited to the extent undertaken. The Opposite Parties would also like to bring to the kind attention of this Hon’ble National Commission in Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. Vir Pratap (1997) II CPJ 81 (NC) wherein it was held that where the complaints of the Complainant were duly and promptly attended to by the Opposite Party and no reliable evidence was produced by the Complainant in support of his case that he suffered a loss due to inconvenience caused to him, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief. In the present case as well the Opposite Parties have taken care of the complaints of the Complainant and have therefore never been deficient in the services provided to the Complainant. It is denied that the Complainant ever approached the Opposite Parties with his grievance on 04.07.16 or 11.07.16. It is also denied that there were any calls/E mails/ written communications made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 regarding the same. All the communications of the Complainant was wired to the dealer, who is not the service provider.  Further, it is submitted that the Complainant only approached the Opposite Parties on 30.07.2016 with his grievance. The grievance of the Complainant was resolved as per the terms and conditions of the warranty.

          Evidence of the Complainant

11. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein       he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

         Evidence of the Opposite Parties

12. In order to prove its case Opposite Parties have filed affidavit of Ms. Meena Bose, AR for Opposite Parties, Sony India Pvt. Ltd, A-31, Mohan Co-operative, Mathura Road, Delhi wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported.

Arguments and conclusions

13. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the         written arguments filed by the Complainant.  The case of the Complainant is that he purchased an LED TV from Opposite Party No.3 for a sum of Rs. 52,000/- on 08.01.14 with one year warranty and two year additional warranty. The Complainant stated that the TV in question faced some problems and he made a complaint to the Opposite Party regarding the problem in the said TV on 04.07.16. The Complainant also called the Opposite Party No.2 on several times regarding the problem being faced by him. As per Opposite Party, they have provided excellent services as per terms and conditions of the warranty and the grievance of the Complainant has been resolved each and every time the Complainant approached the Opposite Party. With regard to the Complainant’s complaint dated 04.07.16 same was resolved by the Opposite Party on 30.07.16 and the Complainant paid Rs. 6,385/-for the repair and replacement of the defected part. The representative of the Opposite Party visited again on 05.05.17 and found no problem in the functioning of the TV. The Complainant did not file any rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party and not produce any material during evidence about TV was not repaired on 30.07.16 after making payment of Rs. 6,385/-. There was no material found in the Complainant’s complaint or in his evidence about any complaint made to the Opposite Party after the repair of the TV on 30.07.16 and Opposite Party visit on 05.05.17.So, there is no deficiency of service found on the part of Opposite Party.
14. In view of the above discussion, complaint is dismissed.
15. Order announced on 06.01.23.

                   Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President