DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 112 of 2014
Date of filing: 11.6.2014 Date of disposal: 25.8.2015
Complainant: Sri Rajendra Kumar Luharuwala, S/o. Sri Ram Prasad Luharuwala, resident of Madhu Sarani, PO: Searsol Rajbari, PS: Raniganj, District: Burdwan.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., White House, 2nd Floor, 119 Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016.
2. Neosa Electronics Pvt. Ltd., S. B. Gorai Road, Rangania Para More, (Behind Nazrul University & Sukanta Maidan), Asansol – 713 303.
Present: Hon’ble President: Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Sukumar Mondal.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Shyamal Kumar Ganguli.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: None.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops have replaced the T.V. Set with the earlier one but at a very lower cost.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Sony Bravia LCD T.V. on 24.9.2009 after making payment of Rs. 35,900=00 from Sony T.V. dealer at Kolkata. The video (Picture) of the Sony T.V. failed after about three years of its usage. The OP-1 was informed about its failure and it deputed the OP-2 being authorized service centre of the OP-1 for attending the fault. Upon inspection of the T.V. the Op-2 issued an estimate for Rs. 7,346=00 towards repairing cost of the defective parts on 31.12.2012. During its inspection by the OP-2 the complainant noticed that the alleged defective parts were not of Sony brand but of Samsung brand. It is therefore apparent that the Sony T.V. was an assembled product and not a manufactured product as claimed by the OP-1. The petitioner discussed the matter with the OP-1&2 stating since the alleged defective parts were of another make therefore repair shall be carried out free of cost. But the Ops did not agree with such request and for this reason the matter was pending for few months. Ultimately and finally the complainant surrendered to the Ops and undertook to pay sum demanded by the OP-1 on condition that the defective parts of the T.V. would be returned to the complainant. The Ops have realized that the complainant could take them to the court subsequently with proof that the alleged defective parts were of another make. So thereafter verbally informed the complainant that as the parts required for replacement are no more available and the Ops told the complainant that they would take back the defective T.V. and replace the same with a new equivalent set having same features and price, if the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 7,405=00. The complainant was forced to accept this offer. Since the complainant was entirely at the mercy of the Ops and having no other alternative choice, he agreed with this offer and returned the old T.V., remote, warranty card, purchase invoice etc. to the OP-2 along with a sum of Rs. 7,405=00 in cash on 12.4.2013. It is stated by the complainant that the Op-2 delivered another T.V. to him on 29.4.2013 in sealed cartoon box but at a very lower price which is evident from the tag that the cost of the said T.V. is of Rs. 24,900=00. So the OP-2 did not deliver the latter T.V. with the same price of the earlier for Rs. 35,900=00. The complainant was forced to sign and accept the replacement of the T.V. by the OP-2. After installation of the replaced TV it was noticed by him that the cabinet of the T. V. was much smaller in size than earlier and view effect is not as good as the previous one, but the OP-2 did not pay any heed to his request and complaint. The complainant has made several correspondences with the OP-1 demanding a sum of Rs. 4,405=00 which was wrongly collected from him towards return along with Rs. 11,000=00 being the difference price of the earlier T.V. with the new one, but the Ops have ignored all his requests. Thereafter the complainant went to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Durgapur Regional Office on 20.01.2014 wherein a joint mediation was arranged on two occasions but the Ops did not turn up. Being compelled the office of the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Durgapur R.O. closed the file and asked him to file a case before this ld. Forum. Thereafter finding no other alternative the complainant has approached before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the Ops to refund the amount for Rs. 7,405=00 collected on 12.4.2013, refund of difference price of the T.V. for Rs. 11,000=00, compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000=00 due to physical strain, mental agony and inconvenience and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000=00 to him.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-1 by filing written version wherein it is contended that the instant complaint is false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect along with an abuse of the process of law and hence it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this ld. Forum as the complainant has filed the same just to avail of undue advantage and to earn wrongful gain at the cost of the Ops. According to the OP-1 this complaint is liable to be dismissed u/S. 26 of C.P. Act, 1986. It is mentioned in the version that the complainant purchased a Sony Bravia LCD T.V. on 24.9.2009 after detailed demonstration of the feature, functions, applications and being fully satisfied with same the T.V. was delivered at his residence. During purchase the OP-1 provided a limited warranty on its product and the liability lies strictly in accordance with the terms and the conditions of the warranty, therefore, the OP-1 cannot be held liable for the claim falling outside the scope of the warranty. Admittedly, after enjoying the T.V. for a period of more than three years without any sort of defect the complainant approached before the OP-2 on 19.01.2013 for the first time alleging the defect regarding no video. Upon inspection of the instrument it was learnt that the BT2 mount board became defective and since the material was out of the warranty period an estimate of Rs. 7,405=00 was given to the complainant towards repairing charge of the said T.V. As the said set was an old one the parts could not be traced and therefore it became beyond repair. Even though the OP-1 showing its good gesture offered to exchange the said defective T.V. with a new one subject to payment of Rs. 7,405=00 by the complainant which was earlier intimated to him. The complainant has taken the said offer and in the letter dated 12.4.2013 he agreed to pay the above-mentioned amount regarding the exchange of his defective T.V. with a new and upgraded model no. KLV-32BX350. It is submitted by the OP-1 that the exchanged LCD was an upgraded model with an addition feature of USB compatibility and had latest technology. But the complainant with his ulterior motive had approached before the OP-1 demanding refund of the money on account of difference of price of the model purchased by him and the one exchanged against the former. However, the OP-1 by issuing a letter dated 21.5.2013 apprised him that the price for electronic products may vary from time to time. It is pertinent to mention that the new exchanged model had the latest technology along with addition feature of USB. It was also apprised to him that the OP-1 had exchanged the product considering similar features rather than the price. Though the OP-1 showed his good gesture but it was not liable to do the same as the subject T.V. was out of warranty. After taking delivery of the new T.V. the complainant has filed this complaint seeking for some illegal gain and harassing the Ops and for this reason this complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. The complainant is still enjoying the T.V. but filed this case with an oblique motive. As the C.P. Act is a beneficial legislation the same cannot be used as a mechanism to arm twist companies to agree with unreasonable demand of the consumer like the complainant in the present case. Prayer has been made by the Op-1 for dismissal of the complaint.
It is seen by us that spite of receipt of notice from this ld. Forum the OP-2 did not bother to turn up to contest the petition of complaint either orally or filing written version. Therefore this ld. Forum was pleased to fix the hearing of the complaint ex parte against the OP-2.
The complainant and the OP-1 have filed evidence on affidavit along with several documents in support of their respective contentions. The OP-1 has filed written notes of argument with a copy to the other side. We have carefully perused the record and the documents filed by the parties and heard argument at length from the ld. Counsel for the OP-1 and the complainant who was present personally.
It is seen by us that admittedly the complainant purchased one Sony Bravia LCD TV Model no. KLV32T550A on 24.9.2009. It is stated by the complainant that the cost of the said T.V. was of Rs. 35,900=00. Admittedly, the complainant enjoyed the said T.V. for about three years; the said set was under the coverage of the warranty for one year. The complainant observed that some defects had been cropped up in the said set regarding video picture and for repairing the same he informed the OP-1 who deputed the OP-2, the authorized service centre of the OP-1 for attending to the fault. It is alleged by the complainant that during inspection of the defects it was detected that the defective parts were not of Sony brand but of Samsung brand. But in this respect there is no evidence adduced by the complainant. After inspection on 31.12.2012 the OP-2 demanded Rs. 7,346=00 towards repairing charge of the defective parts. It is further alleged that it was apparent to the complainant that the said T.V. set was an assemble product, not a manufactured product of the OP-1 company. In this respect also no documentary evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the complainant. As per settled law without documentary evidence mere allegation does not stand. Finally the OP-1 had offered to the complainant for exchanging the said defective T.V. with a new one subject to payment of Rs. 7,405=00 by him. From the acceptance of offer and indemnity letter dated 12.4.2013 as endorsed by the complainant it is evident that in the said letter the complainant himself had agreed to exchange the old defective T.V. being Model no. KLV-32T550AIN with a new set being Model No. KLV-32BX350 and he was also agreed to make payment of Rs. 7,405=00 toward special price to the M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. He also agreed to return the said defective set along with warranty card and purchase challan and it was mentioned by him that he did not have any further claim on Sony towards this deal. The complainant had alleged that this letter was written by him due to creation of force by the OP-1. But it is seen by us that in the said letter the complainant has made some addition and alteration by writing the same in his own hand. Therefore, no iota of evidence is gathered from the said document that force was created by the OP-1 for writing the same. Where the complainant being agreed wrote the letter, now he cannot put the liability on the shoulder of the OP-1 or else one. Further allegation of the complainant is that the cost of the exchanged T.V. is at lower level than the earlier defective one because the cost of the earlier LCD was of Rs. 35,900=00 but the OP-1 has supplied the exchanged T.V. of Rs. 24,900=00 and hence he has prayed for refund of Rs. 11,000=00 from the OP-1 towards the difference of price. In this respect we are of the view that in the acceptance offer in indemnity letter dated 12.4.2013 there is no mentioning of the price either of the earlier T.V. or the latter. Only settlement was done in respect of its model, but in the petition of complaint the complainant did not allege any complaint regarding the model of the exchanged T.V. It is an admitted fact that the OP-1 has delivered the model of the exchanged T.V. as mentioned in the said letter dated 12.4.2013. Therefore we are not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as to whether the complainant received the exchanged new T.V. at a very lower cost than the earlier one, as there is no documentary evidence before us. In the complaint the complainant has prayed for refund of the amount of Rs. 7,405=00 which has been paid by him during receipt of the exchanged T.V. but in our view as he agreed to pay the said amount in writing now he is not entitled to get back the said amount as sought for. As we are unable to find out any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops within forecorners of the record and considering the documents as available in our view the complainant is not entitled to get any amount towards cost and compensation as prayed for.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed on contest against the OP-1 and ex parte against the OP-2 without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Rules, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
