Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/126/2018

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pushpa Salaria

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/126/2018
Date of Institution	:	12/03/2018
Date of Decision	:	05/03/2019

 

Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o H.No.99-A, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.      Sony India Pvt. Limited, through its CEO/Managing Director, A-18, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044, India.

 

2.      The Partner/Prop., Modern Sales-22, Mega Electronic Stores, Sony Centre, SCO 1122, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

3.      Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Limited, through its CEO/Managing Director, Sony Authorized Service Centre, SCO 126-127, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Pushpa Salaria, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Vikrant Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased a new LED Television (Model No.18768801) from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.53,290/- vide invoice dated 15.05.2016. It has been alleged that just after two-three months of its purchase, the said LED started giving problems. Accordingly, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3 during the 3^rd week of Feb. 2017, whose Engineer though repaired the LED, but after two-three days it again started giving the same problem. On 15.08.2017, finding that there was no picture and only sound was coming from the Television, the Complainant called the Opposite Party No.3 whose Service Engineer visited the Complainant on 21.08.2017 and advised the Complainant to drop the Television to their Service Centre, which the Complainant did on 26.08.2017. However, the Opposite Party No.3 returned the Television to the Complainant without repairs. Being distressed, the Complainant lodged on-line Complaint on 06.10.2017 against the unprofessional services rendered to him, in response whereof he was asked to drop back the LED Television to the Service Centre, which the Complainant did on 14.10.2017. This time, Opposite Party No.3 changed the motherboard and delivered the Television on 28.10.2017, but from next day the problem started again. On 01.11.2017 the Complainant again dropped the LED Television to the Service Centre with the same problems i.e. no picture, no display. This time again the mother board was changed and the Television was delivered to the Complainant on 08.11.2017. Even thereafter, the problem remains the same i.e. no picture, no display. Further again on 27.01.2018 the Complainant took the LED Television to the Service Centre for repairs, where they offered to change its relay on payment basis, to which the Complainant did not agree. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 29.01.2018 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. 
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 contested the Complaint and filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that after enjoying the LED Television for almost 15 months, the Complainant for the very first time approached the Service Centre on 26.08.2017 raising an issue of no display in the said Television. The Complainant approached the Service Centre at a stage when the warranty period was already expired. Therefore, an estimated cost of replacing the B-Board was shared with the Complainant. The Complainant instead of approving the said estimate straightaway refuse to go for any chargeable services and took back the Television in an unrepaired condition. Two months later, the Complainant again approached the Service Centre on 14.10.2017 and approved the estimated cost for replacing the B-Board. After the estimate was approved, the Service Centre replaced the B-Board and delivered the Television in a proper working condition. Lastly, the Complainant approached the Service Center on 27.01.2018 raising an issue with the said Television. The Service Centre carried out necessary inspection and observed that LVDS cable needs to be replaced. Due to the expiry of the warranty period, the Service Centre shared an estimated cost of Rs.1434/-, which the Complainant approve and even refused to collect the Television from the Service Center. The Complainant later on preferred to file the present Complaint on the pretext of baseless allegations just to derive undue benefits. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
6.         On perusal of the documents annexed by the Complainant as well by the Opposite Parties, we find that the product in question had limited warranty of one year from the time of original purchase. It is also observed from the documents annexed that as and when the T.V. had developed any problem, the same was repaired promptly by the Opposite Parties. After the expiry of the warranty period, it is observed that the Opposite Parties have asked to pay for certain charges for carrying out necessary repairs/replacing the B-Board which was shared by the Complainant and the Opposite Parties were rightful in charging the same. Regarding the allegation of the Complainant that the T.V. in question was having some inherent defect, the Complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence in the form of expert opinion which establish the fact that the said T.V. was having some manufacturing defect. Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
7.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/03/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President