Delhi

North East

CC/361/2022

CHETAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

AASHISH GEORGE

07 Nov 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. 361/22

 

In the matter of:

	Sh. Chetan S/o Sh. Lekh Raj R/o H. No. B 7, St. No. 1, Chandu Nagar, Bhajanpura, New Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.                     2.           3.	M/s  Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Registered office at:- A 18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044   M/s Vijay Sales Through its Proprietor Office at:- A 18, SwasthiyaVihar, VikasMarg, New Delhi-110092   Onsite Electro Services Pvt. Ltd. Shed No. 9, DSIDC Sheds, Scheme 1, Phase II, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110021	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: DATE OF ORDER:

07.09.22 29.08.23 07.11.23

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that the on 28.10.19 Complainant purchased LED from Opposite Party No.2 for a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- and taken 3 years extended warranty from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.15,632/- against invoice dated 28.10.19 for total sum of Rs. 1,38,635/-. The Complainant stated that within one year of purchase said LED developed wifi network technical issue. Thereafter, on 28.11.20 Complainant informed Opposite Party No.2 about wifi problem and Opposite Party No.2 sent serviceman to repair the above mentioned TV on 30.11.20. The Complainant stated that service was not done properly and the wifi problem was not rectified. The Complainant statedthat he registered complaint with Opposite Party No.2 on many dates and Opposite Party No.2 sent technician/serviceman but the wifi problem was not resolved. The Complainant stated that despite service said LED was not working properly and it became completely dead. Thereafter, Complainant called Opposite Party No.2 several times and on 10.06.21 technician came and told that there is LED board problem in saidLEDtv and requested 5 days to arrange required part of said LED tv. After 5 days, Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.2 telephonically and requested to repair his LED and Opposite Party No.2 informed that when the required part is available they would immediately change the part in defective tv. After 4-5 days Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.2 and they told Complainant they registered complaint with Opposite Party No.1 on his behalf. The Complainant stated that on 28.06.21 a technician visited Complainant and brought one part in lose packing without sign of genuine parts of sony in unwrapped packing and when Complainant asked about genuine sony parts the technician left the house of Complainant by saying that they don’t have original genuine parts of sony. The Complainant stated that he had obtained tax/invoice/service invoice dated 03.12.20, 06.04.21, 21.04.21 and 09.06.21 generated by Opposite Party No.1 authorised service centre for service rendered. On 29.12.21 Complainant sent legal notice dated 04.01.22 demanding a band new replacement of the defective tv and damages but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the total cost of LED tv in question i.e. Rs. 1,38,635/- with interest from the date of the payment made to the Opposite Party and to replace the said defective tv with a brand new one. He further prayed for Rs. 15,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties i.e. Opposite Party No.1,2 and 3 to contest the case. Therefore, all the Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 20.01.23.

Evidence of the Complainant

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

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard theComplainant in person. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Parties did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 jointly and severally directed to pay the cost of the LED tv of  Rs. 1,23,000/- to the Complainant with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery on the receipt of the alleged defective LED tv from the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 further directed to pay jointly and severally Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 07.11.23.

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