FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI REYAZUDDIN KHAN,MEMBER
This is an application U/S..35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had purchased one LED Television Set Bravia X80G(KD-43X8000G Serial No.8120128 on 07.11.2019 from the OP3.The complainant paid the total consideration amount of Rs,57,418.66( Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Eighteen and sixty six paisa) only through Bajaj Finance Loan Facility.The complainant stated that the sales person of the OP3 Reliance digital offered a two years extended warranty after payment of additional amount Rs,9999/(Rupees Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninty Nine)only.
The complainant further stated that after three days from the date of installation of the TV set it started malfunctioning and display was not working properly.A complaint was lodged to OP2,the Neosa Electronics (P) Ltd.via service ID No.57178854 and the OP2 visited after three days from the date of complaint.The complainant requested the OPs to replace the Television set as it has manufacturing defect but they refused to do so.After several days i.e,on 19.11.2019 again the Television set started malfunctioning.The OPs took the notice and repaired the same but the problem remains.On 25.01.2023 the TV set completely stopped working.The matter was informed to the OPs through service call dated 26.01.2023.Later, they demanded money of Rs,7,291/ for some repairing works related to screen and the complainant paid the said amount.
OP2 returned the TV set after repairing the same but there were some scratch marks remains on the Television set,the complainant immediately informed the same on 15.02.2023 and they demanded an extra amount of Rs,2500/ to repair the scratch which was caused due to negligence and mishandling of the said Television set by the agent of OP2.Thereafter,several communication took place for repeatedly repairing on different issues of the TV set.Time again the OPs demanded money for each and every service they need to provide though it was within the Warranty period. The complainant became extremely frustrated and dissatisfied with the product and service of the OPs.Later, the complainant had send a legal notice to the OPs through his Ld.Advocate on 07.06.2023 but they did not respond the same. The act and conduct of the OPs leads to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Finding no other alternative the complainant knocked the door of the commission and prayed to provide a Television set of same standard or in default pay an amount which is equivalent to present market price of the Tv set along with Rs,9,999/ the extra amount paid for extended warranty. A sum of Rs,2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lakh )only for mental harassment, humiliation and agony along with Rs,50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand)only as litigation cost.
W.V was filed by the OP1 and 2 annexing E/chief of the OPs;.On scrutiny of the postal internet track reports it appeared that notices have been served to the OPs way back on 20.09.2023 and 19.09.2023,stipulated period for filling W.V by the OPs has already been elapsed and the prayer for accepting W.V not accepted and the case do proceeded Ex-parte against the all OPs.
Points for Determination
In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.
1) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant?
2) Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 3 :-
The above mentioned points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.We have travelled over the documents placed on record. The complainant has filed his BNA and Evidence supported by affidavit. The complainant had purchase one LED Television set Bravia X80G(KD-43X8000G) Sl.No.8120128 on 07.11.2019 from OP3.The complainant has already paid Rs,57,418.66( Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Eighteen and sixty six paisa) only through Bajaj Finance Loan Facility.An amount of Rs,9,999(Rupees Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninty Nine)only paid additionally for more two years warranty but within seven days from purchase of the Television set it started malfunctioning which was intimated to Sony India and asked for replacement. TheTelevision set got repaired through the technical support from OP2, M/s Neosa Electronics on 14.11.2019. There were series of communication took place between the complainant and the OPs regarding the functioning of the Television set in question.Some of the repairings of the Television set was within the warranty period and some are after the expiry of the warranty period.The problem remains in the TV set till 2023.
Here, it is observed from the conversation through Whatsapp dated 01.12.2019 with one representative from Sony India which reflects that the complainant informed the concerned OPs regarding the malfunctioning of the TV set just after 3 days of purchase and within twenty days it repaired three times.It is a clear pointer of the fact that the efficacy of previous repairing did not last long. The service centre some how manage to repair the new Television set till during the warranty period of three years expires.The complainant requested the OPs time and again for replacement of the complete TV set as it has manufacturing defects but the OPs did not responded positively.It is quite natural for a middle class person who invested so much money to purchase the Television set to fulfill their entertainment desire with family members and that TV set gives trouble from the very first week of purchase leads frustration and agony.
OPs have miserably failed to provide proper technician’s opinion which establishes what the actual defect was there in the TV set. This causes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice they are responsible for supplying a product having manufacturing defect and failed to either repair or replace the product in question during the subsistence of warranty period for the Television set.
We are of the view that in the complaint, all the allegations revolve around
OPs, who did not engage or taken any expert opinion regarding the disputed issue of the Television set.
Hence, the OPs are held guilty of deficiency in service. The complainant has been
deprived of use of his Product for several years only because of deficiency on the part of OPs.The complainant has suffered mental agony, pain and harassment. It is settled principle of law that the compensation should be commensurate with loss of suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. To get relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle.In these circumstances the complainant is entitled to get compensation.
In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.
- OP1 company is directed to refund the paid amount of the Television set of Rs,57,418.66 (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Eighteen and sixty six paisa)only with a litigation cost of Rs,5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand)only to the complainant.
- OP2 & OP3 are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs,10,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant within 60 days from the date of the order.
- Complainant put the order in execution, if the OPs transgresses to comply the order according to Consumer Protection Act, 2019 after the expiry of 60 days.
