Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/95/2015

Balwinder Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 95 of 2015

                                           Date of institution : 02.11.2015                                             Date of decision    : 15.06.2016

Balwinder Khanna(aged 45 years), son of Shri Ajay Khanna, resident of House No.126, Dalima Vihar, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Sony India Private Ltd., Registered Office at A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044 through its Manager/General Manager/Managing Director.
2. Sofat Electronics, Bassi Road, Sirhind- 140406 & Godown at village Mandophal District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its Proprietor.
3. Sony Care Centre, Shop No.11 GTV Market, Khanna through its Incharge Shri Puneet.

…..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                               

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                 Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                  Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :  Sh.H.S.Sandhu, Adv. counsel for the complainant.                             Sh.D.P.S.Anand, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.

 ORDER

 

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, Balwinder Khanna(aged 45 years), son of Shri Ajay Khanna, resident of House No.126, Dalima Vihar, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as "the OPs") under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant purchased one Sony LED Model KLV-32R422B bearing Sr. No.3338372, vide invoice No.1318 dated 08.11.2014, for Rs.28,800/- from OP No.2. The OP issued a warrantee card, which is valid for one year from the date of purchase of the product. After purchase of the said LED TV the complainant has found that the same is defective one, as it created problem in running from the very beginning. It has been noticed by the complainant that the LED TV is suddenly stopped and it gives red indication three times. The complainant has to restart the LED TV again and again. The complainant approached OP No.3 i.e. Customer Care Centre vide complaints No.26556169 dated 20.07.2015, No.26856734 dated 06.08.2015 and lastly on 23.09.2015 and requested the OP to change the defective LED TV with new one as the same is in warrantee period. The mechanic of the OPs has visited and tried to remove the defect in the said LED TV but all in vain.  The complainant also sent emails to the OPs on 15.08.2015 and 07.09.2015 and even has purchased one UPS on 24.09.2015 for Rs.1650/- as per the advice of mechanic of the OPs but the position is the same. The complainant also served legal notice to the OPs but they failed to give reply to the same. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.28,800/- i.e value of the defective LED TV along with interest or to replace the defective LED TV with new one, Plus cost of UPS along with interest, compensation and litigation charges.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint they stated that after enjoying the LED TV for almost 5 ½ months, the complainant approached the OPs on 07.04.2015 raising an issue that red colour was blinking in the said LED TV. Without any delay the OPs have immediately attended the complainant and inspected the LED. However, the issued in relation to the subjected LED was resolved by replacing the main board free of cost.  Thereafter on 21.07.2015 the complainant again approached the OPs raising the similar issue with LED. The said issue was also resolved in due course of time and the LED was delivered back to the complainant in a proper working condition. Thereafter on 04.08.2015 the complainant approached OPs raising an issue with Adapter. The OPs replaced the adapter free of cost. It is further stated that the complainant has failed to appreciate and consider the facts that the issues of the complainant were duly attended and timely action was taken to resolve the issues.  Moreover, the issues pertaining to the subjected LED TV were taken up on priority basis and best possible services were provided to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant has failed to establish any inherent defect with the LED TV. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copies of documents i.e. bill dated 08.11.2014 Ex. C-2, warrantee card Ex. C-3, fax Ex. C-4 to C-5, bill dated 24.09.2015 Ex. C-6, legal notice Ex. C-7, original postal receipts Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Meean Bose Ex. OP-1, true copies of documents i.e. authorization letters Ex. OP-2 & OP-3, board resolution/authority letter Ex. OP-4, bill dated 08.11.2014 Ex. OP-5, warrantee Ex. OP-6, job sheet Ex. OP-7 and closed the evidence.  

5.                   Written arguments were submitted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant but no written arguments were submitted by the OPs.

6.                    The Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that he purchased LED TV, vide bill No.1318 dated 08.11.2014 from OP No.1, who is a retailer and OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the said LED TV and OP No.3 is the service centre of the OP No.2. The Ld. counsel pleaded that the LED TV after five months of the purchase developed some defect in April 2015. It was repaired by OP No.3 by replacing the mother board. But again some problem arose on 21.07.2015, which was resolved and again there was problem in August 2015. Then the adapter was replaced by the OPs but inspite of repairs three times, in a short span of 9 months, problem still persists.  E-mails were sent to OP No.1 in August and September 2015 but to no avail. Then a legal notice(Ex. C-6) dated 08.10.2015 was served on OPs but no reply was received. On the suggestion of the mechanic of OP No.3, an U.P.S.for Rs.1650/-(Ex.C-5) was purchased but even then there was no improvement in the functioning of LED TV. The Ld. counsel pleaded that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for acceptance of his complaint.

7.                   The Ld. counsel for the OPs submitted that the complaints lodged by the complainant were duly attended and timely action was taken to resolve the fault in the LED
TV. Mother board of the LED TV was replaced in April 2015, again complaint was attended in July 2015 and in August 2015, Adapter was replaced instead of repair and nothing was charged from the complainant for all these services & thus there was no deficiency on the part of the OPs and there was no inherent defect with the LED TV as inspected by the service team of the OPs and thus pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.

8.                   After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties & written submission of the complainant, we find that there is force in the plea of the Ld. counsel for the complainant. We are of the considerate view that inspite of repeated repairs (3 times) of the LED TV, it has not been set right to the satisfaction of the customer. As per suggestion of the mechanic of OP No.3, there was no improvement in the functioning of LED TV even with the installation of UPS (Ex. C-6). OPs did not bother to give reply to the legal notice( Ex. C-7) and there was no response to the e-mails dated 15.08.2015(Ex. C-4) and 07.09.2015  (Ex. C-5) sent to the OPs by the complainant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint and direct the OPs:

a)         To replace the said LED TV with a new one of the same value and in case the LED TV is not replaced, refund the amount of Rs.28,800/-thereafter within 45 days.

b)         Complainant is also held entitled to a compensation on account of mental tension and physical harassment for a sum of Rs.2,500/- along with litigation costs of Rs.1500/-.

9.                   All the above directions be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise interest of 9% P.A. will be levied till its realization.

10.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 03.06.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 15.06.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                           President

 

(Veena Chahal)                         Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)                        Member