DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  9^th  day of  June, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 23/10/2019  

                         CC/251/2019

P.V.Lukose,

Panakuzhiyil Veedu,

P.O.Thachambara – 678 593                                     -                       Complainant

(By Adv.M.Sivadas)

                                                                                                Vs

1. Sony India Pvt.Ltd.

Regd.Office,

A-18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Madura Road,

New Delhi – 110 044

2. Kochukudiyil Agencies,

Kochukudiyil Towers,

Near Town Church,

Mannarkkad – Palakkad 

     3.    Access Electronics,

            1^st Floor, Sakthi Complex,

Coimbatore Road, Kalmandapam,

Palakkad                                                                      -                       Opposite parties

(O.P.s by Adv. R. Anand)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complainant pleadings abridged is that the T.V. manufactured by the 1^st O.P., purchased from the 2^nd O.P., stopped functioning abruptly after functioning well for some time. Eventhough personnel of 3^rd O.P. service station approached the complainant they failed to rectify the defect. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has approached this Commission.
2. O.P.s filed version contenting that the monitor of the T.V. suffered crack which is the aftermath of mishandling by the complainant. This damage could not be repaired under warranty conditions and sought for dismissal of the complaint.  
3. Issues are framed as follows:

1. Whether the damage suffered by the T.V. comes under warranty conditions?
2. Whether there is any other deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s?

3.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?

4.         Any other Reliefs?

5. (i)     Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A8. Complainant was examined as PW1.

   (ii)    As the proof affidavit filed by O.P.1 did not have proper authentication, it was dismissed.

   (iii)   O.P.3 filed Proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to B6.

Marking of Ext. B1 is objected to on the ground it is neither signed nor carries a date. Marking of Ext. B6 is objected as it is the photocopy of a photograph.

Ext. B1 contains the signature of the receptionist of O.P.3 and the date is shown on the left hand side top corner of Ext. B1. Date is 15/02/2019. Complainant does not have a case that Ext. B1 does not belong to the T.V. of the complainant. Hence objection regarding Ext. B1 is overruled.

Next document to attract objection of the complainant is Ext. B6, on the ground it is the photocopy of a photograph. It is true that the O.P.3 could very well have produced the original photographs. But this infarction is not vital as the complainant has no case that these pictures does not belong to the T.V. of the complainant. Hence this objection also is rejected.

 Issue No.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

6.         Complainant has submitted that his T.V. had been working till one day when it abruptly stopped functioning. O.P.s contented that the T.V. suffered from physical damage, ie crack in the monitor.

7.         In view of the pleadings and counter pleadings, the best course of action available for the complainant would be to prove that the T.V suffers from inherent latent defects. But the complainant failed to take any steps, including appointment of a Commissioner who could ascertain the damages suffered by the T.V. Complainant having failed to ascertain the nature of damage suffered by the T.V., we cannot come to a conclusion as to the nature of the damage suffered ie. whether the damage is one covered under the warranty conditions or not. 

Issue Nos.2 to 4

8.         Apropos the finding in Issue No.1, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case. Complainant is not entitled to any if the reliefs sought for.

9.         With this conclusion, complaint is dismissed.

10.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Pronounced in  open court on this the 9^th day of June, 2023                                                                                                                           

      Sd/-

                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

      Sd/-                                                          Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :  

Ext.A1 – Copy of letter dated 6/4/2019  

Ext.A2 – Copy of warranty card

Ext.A3 –  Copy of e mail communication dated 17/5/2019

Ext.A4 –  Copy of tax invoice dated 2/10/2018

Ext.A5 – Original Warranty Card

Ext.A6 – Original acknowledgment card

Ext.A7 – Original Operating instructions

Ext.A8 – Original of notices and licenses for software used in the television

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   

Ext.B1 – Original service job sheet

Ext.B2 – Copy of delivery chalan dated 16/2/19

Ext.B3 – Copy of tax invoice dated 2/10/2018

Ext.B4 – Copy of estimate dated 15/2/2019

Ext.B5 – Copy of warranty card

Ext.B6 – Photocopy of a photograph

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  

PW1 – P.V.Lukose Complainant

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.