Order No.  04    Dated :  31.05.2019

            Today is fixed for Admission hearing.  

            Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant  who submits that the complainant had purchased one Sony Bravia Television, Model No. KD-55X9004A at a cost of Rs.2,74,900/- from Sony Centre, 42, Gariahat Road, Kolkata – 700 029 on 29.06.2014 and the warranty period of the subject TV was 3 years from the date of purchase. She further submits that after expiry of the warranty period, the subject TV developed problems and the matter was informed to the Service Centre of the OP-1and they deputed one technician to sort out the problem. The technician of the Service Centre of  OP-1 opined that the picture tube of the subject TV  have damaged and advised to change the panel at a cost of Rs.83,800/-. According to the Ld. Advocate of the complainant, the OPs failed to replace the panel on the ground that such panel is out of stock. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

            We have heard the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and perused the complaint petition coupled with its annexure thereto. Fact remains that the complainant purchased one Sony Bravia TV, Model No. KD-55X9004A on 29.06.2014 at a price of Rs.2,74,900/- from Sony Centre, 42 Gariahat Road, Kolkata – 700 029 and its warranty period was 3 years from  the date of purchase. It is also true that after expiry of the warranty period the subject TV developed problems with the display of picture and the matter was reported to the Service Centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., who deputed one technician to find out the problem and the technician opined that the picture tube of the TV damaged and its replacement charge is Rs.83,800/-. Ultimately, the OPs failed to replace the picture tube on the ground that subject model picture tube is out of stock. Admittedly, the complainant did not pay Rs.83,800/- to the Service Centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. for replacement of picture tube. Thus, in our opinion the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the warranty period has already been elapsed. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part  of the OPs. Therefore, we are not inclined to admit the complaint.

            Hence,

ORDERED

That the complaint case is not admitted and dismissed in limine.

            In view of above observation, the complainant’s petition dated 17.04.2019 U/s 11 (2) (b) of the CP Act, 1986 is rejected.

            Thus, the MA being No. 194 of 2019 is disposed of.