BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

   30^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

O R D E R

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant prays to direct the OPs to replace the TV unit with a brand new and latest model LED TV, to pay compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- towards mental distress and to provide a relief of Rs.42,025/- as a repair cost.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

Complainant submitted that he has raised a complaint to Sony India customer care on 11.07.2018 for fixing LED Panel issue of his TV which is purchased on 03.10.2016, where complainant seen dotted line in the TV LED screen.  That in response a service engineer visited complainant house to verify the issue.  After some examination the engineer come to a conclusion that it is a physical damage.  Further complainant submitted that the scratch claimed to be a physical damage by Sony is at a distance of 9 inches from the area of the screen where complainant reported that a dotted line is appearing and cannot be shown as a reason for not fixing the issue with the screen.  That the Sony Service Engineer who came for inspection has declared that this is a case of physical damage without thorough examination of the problem.  This was certainly surprised to the complainant because the said Engineer from the reputed company like Sony expected to demanding Rs.42,025/- as a service cost to the said repair.  Complainant requested them to verify it again and tried to do as many email communications as the complainant could not sorting out the issues.  Even after all the sufferings complainant could not get good response from OPs.

Complainant further submitted that the warranty of the said product expires on 03.10.2018 and approached the OPs to respond as early as possible.  But there is no response from OPs side.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Having no other alterative the complainant approached this forum for appropriate relief.

3. Despite service of notice, one Pallava R, Advocate appeared and filed vakalath on behalf of OPs but did not choose to file version.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint.  The complainant has produced documents along with complaint.  We have heard the arguments of complainant side and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of complainant scrupulously. 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

   1) Whether the complainant establishes the alleged  
  manufacturing defect of OP-1 Company in his T.V 
  purchased from OP-2/dealer and also the
  deficiency in service with OP-2?

          2) To what order the parties are entitled?

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

    Point No.1: In the Negative

    Point No.2: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the complainant purchased Sony LED TV on 03.10.2016 from the OP vide Ex-A1 Tax invoice/receipt for Rs.1,04,240/-.  Before this transaction, the complainant purchased another Sony LED TV.  Due to LED panel issue the OP replaced this T.V.

8. The complainant raised a complaint to Sony India Customer Care on 11.07.2018 for fixing LED panel issue of dotted line in the LED TV screen.  In response a service engineer visited to complainant’s house to verify the issue, after some examination, the engineer decided that it’s a physical damage.

9. The complainant submits that the Sony Service Engineer who came for inspection has declared that this is a case of physical damage without thorough examination of the problem demanding Rs.42,025/- as a service cost.  The complainant further submits that, this issue is manufacturing defect and warranty is getting expired on 03.10.2018.  Hence the complainant is filed this complaint.

10. On making careful scrutiny of the case of complainant on the back ground of oral and documentary evidence of complainant, it is no doubt true that, the complainant has purchased SONY LED TV from OP.  But this is replaced previous T.V.  In Ex-A6 the complainant agreed to accept replacement of TV and he declared that “This is to our complete satisfaction.  I shall not take any claim in future for the Subjected set model”.  As looking into the warranty will not covered in respect of T.V.  By looking into the warranty card, it is valid upto November 2017 but the complainant raised complaint on 11.07.2018.  So this is out of warranty.  It is also clearly shows on seeing the document produced by the complainant marked as Ex-A5.  According to Ex-A2 & A3, it shows that, the TV damaged due to physical damage, not manufacturing defect.  If there is manufacturing defect, the complainant should produce supporting documents but the complainant did not produce any supporting expert report to show the manufacturing defect.  In the result the complainant has failed to establish the alleged manufacturing defect in the purchased Sony TV and also failed to prove how the OPs become liable to replace with new TV and thereby the consumer dispute No.1 is answered as negative.

11. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings of the consumer dispute No.1, the complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

1) The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.

2) Looking to the circumstances of the case, we directed both the parties to bear their own cost.

          3) Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 30^th day of November 2019)

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.Bhanu Chander 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Vln*