OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.36/2011
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Sri U.N.Deka - Member
Mr.Obaidul Islam alias Manju - Complainant
Son of Amzad Hussain,
Resident of Chetryapara, Tura
-vs-
1) Sony India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.parties
Registered Office: A-31, Mohan
Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura
Road, New Delhi- 110044.
2) Indus Elektrovision
S.S.Road, Lakhtokia,
District- Kamrup (Metro)
Guwahati-781001
Appearance-
Learned advocate Mr.Iqbal Ahmed for the complainant
Date of argument- 8.6.2016
Date of judgment- 23.6.2016
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1) This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2) The complaint filed by Mr.Obaidul Islam alias Manju was admitted on 12.7.2011 and notices were served upon Opp.Parties and Opp.Party No.1 filed written statement, but the case against Opp.Party No.2 is proceeding on exparte vide this forum’s order dtd. 21.5.2013 . After filing of the written statement by Opp.Party No.1, the complainant filed his affidavit, but at the stage of cross-examination of complainant side witness, Opp.Party No.1 is found absent without step . Hence the proceeding against Opp.Party No.1 is directed to run on exparte vide this forum’s order dtd. 20.4.2016. Finally, on 8.6.16 we have heard oral argument of ld advocate of Mr.Iqbal Ahmed for the complainant who also filed written argument on behalf of the complainant.
We have perused the pleading as well as evidence of the complainant and also the written statement filed by Opp.Party No.1. We have also perused the argument of ld advocate Mr.Iqbal Ahmed, who is appearing for the complainant. We are giving our decision which is as follow,-
3) The gist of the complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased one Sony (26”) LCD Television from Opp.Party No.2, who is the authorized dealer of Opp.Party No.1 ,namely Sony India Pvt. Ltd., and on 31.10.2009 and its model No.is KLV 26T4008 and Serial No. is 1253714, at a price of Rs.27,900/-, but in the month of Feb/2010 i.e. after three months of purchasing it, it showed some defect that is appearance of a line on the screen of it, and then he immediately informed at Kolkata office of Opp.Party No.1 and they responded to him and told him that service engineer will attend the problem. In the month of June,2010 two persons came from service centre of Opp.Party No.1 and took away the Television for repairing informing him that it would be returned within a span of seven days after repairing, but they have not returned his L.C.D. at all. Opp.Party No.2 informed him over telephone that the Television is ready and he will have to pay Rs.7,000/-as service charge. Although the warranty period is valid up to 20.1.2011 as per warranty card which was signed and sealed by Opp.Party No.2. The officials of Opp.Party No.1 admitted that the defect in the television seems to be a manufacturing defect. The defect was not created by him. He also requested the opp.parties to exempt him from the said amount of Rs.7,000/-(the charge of repairing) but result was negative. He also then served one legal notice upon the Opp.Parties, but they did not reply the legal notices. The opp.parties are bound to pay him compensation for selling the defective television to him; and the opp.parties are also liable to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- against the price value of the said television and another Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation for causing harassment to him.
4) We have perused the evidence of the complainant as well as exhibited documents. From Ext.1 which is the Invoice, it is clear that on 31.10.09 the complainant had purchased one Sony (26”) LCD television, model No. KLV 26T4008 and Serial No. 1253714, from Opp.Party No.2 namely Indus Elektrovision, S.S.Road, Lakhtokia, Guwahati which is the authorized dealer of Opp.Party No.1, namely Sony India Pvt.Ltd.by paying consideration of Rs.27,900/-. From Ext.2, it is seen that it is the warranty card of the said television, which shows that the warranty period was valid up to 20.1.2011. The television showed defective which after three months of its purchase i.e. from the month of Feb,2010. Thus, it is established that the complainant had purchased one Sony (26”) LCD television, of which model No.is KLV 26T4008 and Serial No. is 1253714, from Opp.Party No.2 at a price of Rs. 27,900/-, and the warranty period was valid up to 20.1.2011 and the said television started to shows defect within warranty period. Opp.Party No.1 admitted that the complainant purchased the said television from Opp.Party No.2 on 31.10.09 and the defect shows with the warranty period, but their claim is that the said television was externally damaged and for that reason, the repairment is not free, and hence the cost of repairment about 7,000/- as estimated by Opp.Party No.2 is to be paid by the complainant. In this case the opp.party side has not turned up and tried to prove their plea that the said television was externally damaged, while it was in the hand of the complainant. From evidence of the complainant, it appears that , the said television was not damaged externally, but only a line has been appearing in the mid of the screen, while it was switched on, so it must be held that this is a manufacturing defect and for manufacturing defect, both the opp.parties are liable to replacing the said television with new one or to repair the television free of cost. In this case, Opp. Party No.1, in its written statement, admits that the television was taken from the complainant by their service provider and they repaired it and also estimated Rs.7,000/- as charge for such repairment . Thus, it is crystal clear that , in the month of June ,2010, two persons from service centre of Opp.Party No.1 visited the house of the complainant and took his television to their service centre assuring him to return the same after repairing it. It is also evident from the affidavit of the complainant and the written statement of Opp.Party No.1 that the said television was repaired by the service provider of Opp.Party No.1, but estimated charge of repairing is Rs.7,000/- and the complainant was asked to pay Rs.7,000/- and get back his Television. Thus, it is proved that service provider of Opp.Party No.1 took the connected television from the complainant in the month of June/2010 and repaired it, but demanded Rs.7,000/- as repairing charge; and they are retaining the said Television while the complainant refused to pay the said charge. It is already found that the defects reflected in the Television is a manufacturing defect and that was detected just after three months of its purchase i.e. within the warranty period. Hence, the opp.parties are liable to get the said television repaired free of cost or to replace it. But it is found that they retained the said television demanding Rs.7,000/- from the complainant as repairing charge. So, we hold that the demand of repairing charge is quite illegal and vary act of retaining the television by the service provider of the opp.parties is also an act of illegality. Now, it is year of 2016 and the Television had been taken away by the service providers of the opp.parties from the residence of complainant in the month of June/2010 and it is still in their possession. Hence, it cannot be said that the said television is presently in-functioning state, it might have lost its functional capacity and durability due to such retention and hence there is no feasibility of returning the said Television in the stage while it was first purchased. Therefore . we hold that the opp.parties are liable to return the cost value of the said television i.e. Rs.27,900/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint (12.7.2011) . Secondly, the act of retention of the said Television by the opp.parties prevented the complainant from enjoying television programme and also put them in mental agony, and hence for such acts, they are to pay atleast Rs.5,000/- as compensation for to the complainant. Thirdly, for no fault of complainant, he was compelled to prosecute the opp.parties before this forum. So,the opp.parties are also liable to pay the complainant atleast Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
5) Because of what has been discussed as above, the complaint is allowed on exparte against both the opp.parties and the opp.parties are directed to pay him Rs.27,900/- as price value of the said Television along with interest @ 12% per annum from 12.7.2011 and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceeding, to which both the opp.parties are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to pay the amounts within two months, in default of which, other two amounts shall also carry interest at the same rate.
Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 23rd June, 2016.
Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.
( Mr.U.N.Deka ) ( Md.S.Hussain )
Member President
