DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.19/2008. Date of filing of the Case: 05.05.2008 Complainant | Opposite Parties | Sanjit Kumar Mishra S/O. Lt. Khagendranath Mishra, Residing at Ghorapir, Englishbazar Fire Station, P.S. Englishbazar, Dist. Malda. | 1. | Managing Director Represented by Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office, A- 31, Mohon Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathure Road, New Delhi – 110044. | 2. | Uttam Saha S/O. Unknown, Prop. Of Matri Electronics Rabindra Avenue, (Opposite of Malda College Gate), P.S. Englishbazar, P.O. & Dist. Malda. |
Present: | 1. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | | |
For the Petitioner : Dulal Sarkar, Advocate. For the O.Ps.: : Arijit Neogi, Advocate for O.P. No.1. For the O.P. No.2 None. Order No. 12 Dt. 05.08.2008 Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:- The petitioner Sanjit Kumar Mishra, purchased one SONY CTV bearing Model No.HML/ZM83 at Rs.11,450/- on 09.10.2007 from O.P. No.3 (Uttam Saha, Prop: Matri Electronics Rabindra Avenue, Malda) against a cash Memo Sl. No.2705 dated 09. 10.2007. The O.P.s also issued warranty certificate. After such purchase of the T.V. set it was not displaying good picture quality and it was reported to the dealer and on and from 26.12.2007 got defunct and it was not working. The matter was reported to the O.P. on 27.12.2007 and he removed the circuit board from the T.V. set for repair. Subsequently, the O.P. reported that due to high voltage PWB has been damaged and the petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 5000/- for replacement with new one. The petitioner has denied the incident of passing high voltage in his electric line on 26.12.2007 night as no other electrical fittings of his house got damaged on the said night and he was told by the dealer that there was inbuilt stabilizer inside Contd…….P/2 P-2 the T.V. so there cannot be any damage of parts due to high voltage. The petitioner demanded replacement of the T.V. set or return of price amounting to Rs. 11,450/- as he was supplied with a defective T.V. set. O.P. No. 1 (Managing Director, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office – A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathure Road, New Delhi – 110 044) contests the case by filing written objections denying the material allegations and also alleged that T.V. set in question was damaged due to flow of high voltage. The P.C. Board was found burnt which was beyond the control of the opposite party and such damage is not caused due to manufacturing defect. The O.P. also averred that according to terms of warranty the petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 4,775/- towards the cost of new P.C. Board through a letter dated 31.01. 2008 but the petitioner did not comply the instruction. The O.P.No.1 claimed dismissal of the complaints as neither he supplied any defective T.V. set nor his service suffers from deficiency. O.P. No.2 ( Uttam Saha, Prop. of Matri Electronics, Rabindra Avenue, P.S. Englishbazar, P.O. & Dist. – Malda) has not made his appearance on receipt of notice on 07.03.2008 through process server nor he is represented by anybody during proceeding of the case. The case against him will heard exparte. From the pleadings of both parties the following points are emerged and need to be discussed for effective disposal of the case. - Whether the service of the O.P.s suffers from deficiency?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? : DECISION WITH REASONS: Both the points are taken together as they are interrelated. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a ‘Consumer’ as defined in Sec. 2 (1) (d)(ii) of the C.P. Act. The petitioner has filed affidavit in chief with a copy to the O.P. No.1 and also examined himself in the dock as PW-1. The PW-1 filed the original cashmemo Sl. No. 2705 dated 09.10.2007 issued by O.P. No.2 (Ext-1) which manifests that one Sony C.T.V., Model No. HM 212M83 was purchased by him at Rs. 11,450=00, original Warranty Certificate of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. under signature and seal of O.P. No.2 as dealer (Ext-2) and Service Job sheet dated 27.12.2007 by authorized service centre with name and style Smart-Tech Solutions, 18/26A Rabindra Avenue, Prof. Colony, Malda (Ext-3). In the cross examination he admitted that T.V. found defective was deposited to O.P. No.2 and subsequently carried the same to Smart Tech Solutions, Malda the Contd…….P/3 P-3 authorized service centre for repair and after two days he came to know from the service centre that the set could not be repaired as it has gone defective due to passing of high voltage. He also admitted that on 26.02.2008 he received a letter from the aforesaid service centre wherein he was asked to deposit Rs.4,775/- for cost of parts to be replaced. PW-1 has, however, denied that he did not receive any letter dated 17.03.2008 of Mrs. Soma Bose from Sony Regional Office at Kolkata and also denied to have submitted any proposal form on 02.04.2008 to Sony India Pvt. Ltd., K.C.L Plaza, 6th Floor, 23 C Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue requesting Regional Service Manager to return cash of Rs. 11,450/-. The PW-1 further denied to receive repaired T.V. Set rather wanted replacement of the set. PW-1 in Para 7 of his petition of complaint has refuted the remark of Service Centre regarding the cause of damage of P.C. Board being flow of high voltage by saying that had there been high voltage on 26.12.2007 night then the other bulbs burning at that time would have been out of order. Similar statement has also been given in para 8 of the affidavit in chief. The PW-1 was not shakened on this point during cross-examination. O.P. No.1 in para 7 of his written objection averred that “every appliance is designed to operate on specific voltage and further to operate on specific voltage and further there was always a possibility that the circuit being used to run the T.V. Set in question was faulty and due to high voltage flow, hence there was every probability that other appliances or other the T.V. Set might not be damaged.” Thus from the above scenario this Forum gives anxious consideration of the statement of the P.W. – 1 which is considered relevant on point of natural human conduct that “had there been an incident of flow of high voltage on 26.12.2007 night the bulbs burning at the time of running the T.V., would have been damaged for such night voltage.” The O.P. – 1 has refuted the contention of P.W. – 1 referring some question of possibilities which may result in the flow of high voltage. The O.P. – 1 had ample opportunity to fight against the above contention of the P.W. – 1 by adducing evidence of his service engineer and had he done so the P.W. – 1 would have the opportunity to contradict by way of cross examination. In absence of any expert opinion it may be said that the P.C. Board of T.V. Set might have been manufactured with that standard of parts which do not withstand minimum fluctuations of voltage in the line for a longer period. Further it appears from para – 9 of affidavits in chief of P.W. – 1 that the dealer (O.P. No.-2) told him that there is a stabilizer installed inside the T.V. so there cannot be any question of damage due to high voltage. Similar statement is also available in Para - 8 of the petition of complaint. It appears from record that P.W. – 1 was not shakened on this point at the time cross-examination. In the petition of complaint para – 8, the P.W. – 1 also has made similar statement. The O.P. No.1 in para – 8 of his written objection admitted that “inbuilt stabilizer is designed to Contd…….P/4 P-4 control fluctuation of voltage, and in case the voltage exceed the said limit, there is always possibility that stabilizer may also damaged.” It is therefore, very much significant and evident for Ext.- 3 which is the service Job sheet that there is no whisper about the condition of inbuilt stabilizer for the T.V. Set. It is pertinent to mention here that what references have prompted the Ld. advocate for O.P. No.1 to put questions to P.W. – 1 (1) that he received a letter dated 17.03.2008 of Mrs. Soma Bose of Regional office Sony Electronics Kolkata and (2) That he submitted proposal form on 2.4.2008 to Sony India Pvt. requesting Regional Service Manager to return cash of Rs.11450/-. Neither the above documents which appear very much specific, have been filed as exhibits nor any argument has been advanced on these points by the Ld. advocate for O.P. No.1. From the above facts & circumstances and after giving anxious consideration over the matter this Forum takes obvious conclusion that there a defect in the T.V set which develops immediately i.e. within two months of the purchase and within short proximity of warranty period still the dealer and manufacturer cannot escape from his liability of compensating the consumer due to the good not free from any fault, imperfection or short coming. It can, therefore, be safely said that the services of O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 suffers from deficiency. Both the points thus disposed of in the affirmative. Proper fees have been paid. Hence, ordered, that Malda D.F. Case No.19/2008 is decreed on contest against O.P. No.1 (Managing Director, Represented to Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office, A- 31, Mohon Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathure Road, New Delhi – 110044) and O.P. No.2 (Uttam Saha, S/O. Unknown, Prop. Of Matri Electronics, Rabindra Avenue, (Opposite of Malda College Gate), P.S. Englishbazar, P.O. & Dist. Malda). The petitioner do get replacement of T.V. Set by a new one or do get return of cash Rs.11450/-. Both O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 jointly and severally do replace T.V. Set by a new one or do return cash Rs.11450/- within 30 days from date of this order. In case of default the petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to law. In the peculiar circumstances there will be no order as to the cost. Let a copy of this order be given both parties free of cost at once. Sd/- Sd/- Sumana Das A. K. Sinha Member Member D.C.D.R.F., Malda. D.C.D.R.F., Malda | 
