DATE OF FILING                    :     15.09.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      07.11.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     25.02.2015.  

Sri Sinchan Bose,

son of Sri Prabad Kumar Bose,  

residing at 1, Ram Mohan Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur,  

District Howrah,

PIN 711102. ….………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1.         Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,  

              Regional Customer Care Centre East,

  White House ( 2^nd floor ),  119, Park Street, Kolkata,

  Pin 700016,

  and also customer care centre at

  Manjula Towers ( ground floor ),

  32, Hazra Road,

  Kolkata 700029.

   

  2.         M/S  Neosa Electronics,

              29, Arabinda Road, Salkia, P.S. Golabari,

   District Howrah,

              PIN  711 106………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

   

   

                                                  P   R    E     S    E    N     T

   

  President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

  Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

          Member       :     Shri Subrata Sarker.

   

                                                   F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

   

• 1. Complainant, Sinchan Bose,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p.no. 1 to replace the panel of the T.V. set in question, to give a lump sum discount on the M.R.P. of the next T.V. purchase, to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation and litigation costs alongwith other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

   

• 2. Complainant bought one Sony 46” Led TV ( Model KDL46EX650 S/N 2002522)from Doha, Qatar, on 16^th June, 2012 on payment of 3999 Riyal i.e., Rs. 59,985/- approx. with one year international service warranty. After lapse of few days complainant brought back the T.V. set to his house situated in Howrah.Thereafter complainant noticed that plenty of colour vertical lines were appearing on the screen and finally the entire picture went off. Complainant informed the matter to the authorized service centre, being o.p. no. 2. O.p. no. 2 inspected and found that the panel was faulty and it was required to be replaced.Subsequently on 20.06.2014 complainant engaged o.p. no. 2 for replacement of the defective panel of the TV set in question. After lapse of ten days, the o.p. no. 2 conveyed a message that they were unable to replace the panel and an offer was given by the official of o.p. no. 1 that in case of buying a current model of Sony TV,at a discount of 25% on MRP would be given. But complainant wanted to replace the panel and sent an advocate’s letter on 05.8.2014 to o.p. no. 1. In reply dated 23.8.2014, the o.p. no. 1 stated that the product is not marketed by them so they are unable to replace the panel. After receiving the said reply complainant went to the office of the o.p. no. 1 at Hazra, Kolkata, on 01.9.2014,and requested the official of o.p. no. 1 for replacement. The officials of o.p. no. 1 explained that the Sony India is a different identity so they are not in a position to give service. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, he filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.

   

• 3. Notices were served. O.p. no. 1 appeared and filed written version. O.p. no. 2 neither appeared nor filed any written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest against o.p. no. 1 and ex parte against o.p. no. 2.

   

• 4. Upon pleadings of parties two points arose for determination :

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?

2. Whether the article itself is a defective one ?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

    

   DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

   5. All the points aretaken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint, written version  and its annexures and noted its contents. Even after making the full payment of  3999 Riyal i.e., Rs. 59,985/- approx, complainant could not utilize the set in a proper way. He has been deprived of using the set. It is the specific plea taken by the o.p. no. 1 in their letter dated 05.11.2014 filed before this Forum as W/V that as the product is not marketed by them meaning to say Sony India Pvt. Ltd., o.p. no. 1 cannot get necessary spares parts to replace the defective panel of the T.V. set in question. It is very much surprising to us that  in spite of providing international warranty by SONY, this kind of invalid plea is taken by o.p. no. 1 which cannot be accepted.     An international warranty is provided by those organizations that perform and have got branches all over the world. And Sony India i.e., o.p. no. 1, is a branch of SONY.  On the other  hand how o.p. no. 1 could offer 25% discount on the exchanged  purchase of any SONY BRAVIA T.V.? When a T.V. set  could  be set right merely by replacement of its  panel, why people at all should go for exchange, that too, on payment of 75%  of the M.R.P. for the new model?  Although the   T.V. set was given to o.p. no. 2 after the lapse of warranty period and o.p. no. 2 immediately informed the complainant that they are unable to replace the panel, it is the liability of the o.p. no. 1, being the manufacturer, to replace the panel in question. If they are not in a position to procure the spare parts for their own article, how an international warranty could have  been provided by SONY, and internationally acclaimed organization dealing in electronic goods. It is nothing but gross negligence coupled with unfair trade practice  on the part of o.p. no. 1. The overall  attitude of o.p. no. 1  is nothing but harassing which certainly caused severe mental agony, physical harassment to the complainant. O.P. no. 1  should have remembered that the success of their business totally depends upon the customer satisfaction. They have got their worldwide business.  No effective post sale service has been given by the o.p. no. 1. Moreover, o.p. no. 1 gave an offer of 25% discount on the MRP with respect to new purchase on exchange of the earlier one which means to sell a new set is their only motto wherefrom they can make a huge profit. For them buyers are always at the mercy of the seller.  How they can possess such a daring attitude towards the customer. And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant  should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 502 of 2014 ( HDF 502 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest   with  costs  against  the O.P. no. 1 and dismissed ex parte without  costs against the o.p.  no. 2.    

      That the  O.P. no. 1 is  directed to  repair the T.V. set in question  on receipt of requisite charge from the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged till actual repair.   

       That o.p. no. 1 is  further  directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/-   as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., 9% shall be charged on the entire amount.

      That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant  within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid  amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.