Delhi

North East

CC/369/2022

Sunil Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 Sep 2022

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.369/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sunil Kumar Sharma Quarter No-C601 Metro Vihar Shastri Park North East, Delhi- 110053	Complainant
	Versus
	The Authorized Signatory Sony India A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044	Opposite Party

 

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

14.09.2022                  21.09.2022                  28.09.2022

 

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.

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a LED TV vide Model No. 43W950D B of 43 inches size item Sr. No. 8522736 and paid Rs. 72,000/- from the Opposite Party’s dealer Neelkanth Electronics Kailash Ngar, Delhi-110031 on 07.12.2016 however the Complainant was shocked display of the said TV stopped working on 08.04.2022 and the LED TV became unserviceable so Complainant informed the Opposite Party’s concern for the same. Complainant stated that the Opposite Party’s technician came to the Complainant residence and gave estimation of Rs. 22,000/- thereafter the Complainant again get a call from the Opposite Party’s concern who informed the Complainant that parts are not available of the said TV so he forced him to pay Rs. 50,000/- for new TV that was not acceptable from the Opposite Party’s concern. The Complainant also stated that he raised issue to the Opposite Party’s concern but he was not provided with any vivid resolution, such act of the Opposite Party is highly unexpected and unprofessional and the Complainant had been extremely harassed during the whole procedure however being deprived of the facilitated service the Complainant intimated the Opposite Party concern on several occasions in respect of the above mentioned issue.  The Complainant also stated that the dispute clearly stated that there was negligence on the Opposite Party and the said Opposite Party is running an Unfair Trade Practice in order to dupe the hard earned money of the Complainant wherein Opposite Party have intentionally provided the de novo dreadful and deceitful service to the Complainant and has not provided the proper facilitated services towards him which was caused his unnecessary noetic agony and stress. The Complainant has prayed that Opposite Party be directed to duly look into the matter with foremost importance to take necessary steps to render the proper service to the Complainant and provide to the Complainant with a reimbursement of the loss incurred, to provide Rs. 1,00,000/- as a compensation to the Complainant for the deficiency in service and mental harassment and agony and to pay the costs of litigation.
2. We have heard the Complainant on the point of Admission and we have also perused the file. It is clear from the facts that Complainant purchased TV on 07.12.16 and said TV stopped working on 08.04.22.  As per document namely estimate of the Opposite Party attach along with complaint is clearly showing that TV was out of warranty period. The Complainant did not attach or produce any document of extended warranty or any consideration paid to Opposite Party for repair of T.V.
3. In view of the above discussion, it is observed that there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.

 

4. Order announced on 28.09.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President