Delhi

East Delhi

CC/291/2019

AJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 291/2019

 

	AJAY KUMAR, S/O SH. VIRENDER KUMAR, R/O A-90, WELCOME, SEELAMPUR-III, DELHI-110053	….Complainant
Versus
1	SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A-18, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI-110044	……OP1
2	M/S ELECTRONIC CRAFT THROUGH ITS MANAGER/A.R. SHOP AT: B-4 & 5, KANTI NAGAR EXTN., DELHI-110051	……OP2
3	M/S A. P. NETWORK SERVICES THROUGH ITS MANAGER/A.R. B-1, PLOT NO. 5, SAGAR COMPLEX LSC, NEW RAJDHANI ENCLAVE, VIKAS MARG, DELHI-110092	……OP3

 

 

Date of Institution: 11.09.2019

Judgment Reserved on: 05.12.2023

Judgment Passed on: 03.01.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

Order By: Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not refunding the cost of the newly purchased TV which got damaged by the representative of the Service Centre on 20.06.2019 due to his negligence. 

1. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased new LED TV (Model no.32W622F) on 28.04.2019 for Rs.26,990/- from OP2 showroom. The manufacturer of the said TV is OP1 and the Service Centre is OP3. After installation of the TV, the Complainant noticed a minor pin size white spot on the screen panel and he contacted customer care of OP1 on 19.06.2019 regarding the said problem and complaint ID 54623990 was generated and the same was assigned by OP1 to OP3 (Service Centre) to attend the complaint. 
2. The representative of the OP3 visited the residence of the Complainant on 20.06.2019 and at the time of inspection he pushed the minor pin size white spot on the TV screen without the consent of the Complainant twice due to which the screen got cracked from the upper side and he called his senior official and assured the Complainant that the screen panel of the TV will be replaced within 2-3 days and thereafter he left the house.      
3. The Complainant waited thereafter and he again called the Service Centre and he was informed he has to pay Rs.10,000/- for changing the TV screen panel.  The Complainant also visited shop of OP2 and matter was taken up with Customer Care of OP1 but all in vain.  The Complainant issued Legal Notice dated 23.07.2019 to the OPs which was replied by OP1 stating that when the product was inspected by their Service Engineer then the display panel was found physically damaged due to external impact and the same has made the Warranty void and the TV in question can be repaired upon payment of estimated cost of Rs.10,550/-.  Complainant has enclosed copy of Invoice dated 28.04.2019, 3 photographs, copy of legal notice etc. with his complaint. The Complainant refused the said proposition and the matter was not resolved.   
4. The Complainant has filed complaint before this Commission seeking following reliefs:

1. To direct the OPs to pay Rs.26,990/- being cost of the LED TV along with interest @ 18% from the date of purchase.
2. To direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental torture and agony suffered by the Complainant. 
3. To direct the OPs to pay Rs.15,000/- being cost of litigation. 

5. Notice was issued to OPs and OP1 and OP3 have filed their joint reply.  OP2 did not file its reply.    

OP1 and OP3 in their reply have stated that the TV in question was purchased from OP2 on 28.04.2019 by the Complainant and one year limited warranty was provided by OP1.  After purchasing the said TV the Complainant approached Service Centre (OP3) on 21.06.2019 (correct date is 20.06.2019) which was attended and upon carrying the necessary inspection it was observed that the panel of the TV was broken due to external reason on account of negligence of the Complainant and it was observed that O CELL needs to be replaced for smooth and better functioning of the TV.  Photographs evidencing the damaged condition of the TV have been said to be annexed as Annexure-R3 (No such document is enclosed with the Reply by OP1 and OP3).

6. Due to damaged condition of the TV the warranty stands revoked and Service Centre shared the estimated cost of Rs.10,550/- for repair action/ replacement of part O CELL.  However, the Complainant did not take any positive steps in this regard.  The Legal Notice issued by the Complainant was duly replied vide their letter dated 26.08.2019. The OP has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Punjab Tractors Limited V/s Vir Pratap (1997) II CPJ 81 (NC) wherein it was held that there if no reliable evidence is produced by the Complainant in support of his case that he suffered loss due to inconvenience caused to him then he is not entitled for relief. 
7. They have also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Kerala State Commission in the case of Sabeena Cycle Emporium Chennakhaada V/s Thajes Ravi M.R. Pancha (1992) I CPJ 1997 wherein it was held that the Forum is bound to determine defect in the goods on the basis of clear evidence by way of expert opinion. This proposition was followed by Hon’ble State Commission of West Bengal in the case Keshab Ram Mahto V/s Hero Honda Motors Limited (2003) CPJ 241. 
8. The Complainant filed Rejoinder to the joint reply of OP1 and OP3 denying its contents and reiterating his complaint. 
9. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the Complainant wherein he has marked following documents as exhibits:

• Evidence by way of affidavit as exhibit CW1/A.
• Copy of Aadhar Card of the Complainant as exhibit CW1/1.
• Copy of invoice bill as exhibit CW1/2. 
• Copy of legal notice dated 23.07.2019 as exhibit CW1/3.

10. No evidence by way of affidavit has been filed OP1 and OP3 and the OPs were proceeded ex-parte on 27.02.2023.   
11. The Commission has heard arguments of both sides and perused the record. 

Purchase of new LED TV Model No.32W622F on 28.04.2019 for Rs.26,990/- from OP2 is not disputed.  The manufacturer of the TV in questuion is OP1 and Service Centre is OP3 is also admitted. 

Upon purchase of the said TV and its installation at the residence of the Complainant, he noticed a minor pin size white spot on the screen panel and he made complaint to customer care of OP1 on 19.06.2019 for which ID 54623990 was generated for which the Complainant has enclosed copy of the message sent to him and the complaint was assigned to OP3.  The Complainant has also enclosed photographs of the white pin size spot seen on screen panel and also the photo of cracked TV Panel.

This complaint was attended by the Service engineer of OP1 on 20.06.2019 at the residence of the Complainant. OP1 and OP3 in their joint reply have stated that when they visited the residence of the Complainant to check the TV in question, it was found in damaged condition and they have stated that they have enclosed photographs of damaged condition of the TV along with reply but no such photographs are enclosed with their reply. 

Onus is on OP1 and OP3 to provide the job sheet prepared by their Service Engineer on 20.06.2019 when he visited the residence of the Complainant to attend the service request ID 54623990 which is the normal procedure followed by any Service Centre and non-production of the same goes to form presumption against them.  OP1 and OP3 have also not disputed the minor pin size white spot appearing on the TV Screen Panel, photograph of which is enclosed by the Complainant and the defense of the OP1 and OP3 is that when their service engineer visited the residence of the Complainant then the TV screen panel was already found broken however they have not produced any supporting documents to their statement. 

OP1 and OP3 have not filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in support of their Reply and it is established proposition of law that pleadings how so ever strong may be, cannot take place of proof.  By not filing evidence OP1 and OP3 have diluted their defense to the extent that the case of the Complainant moves further in the direction of a case of non-rebuttal. The cases cited by OP1 and OP3 are not para-materia to the facts of the present case on account of the above facts. 

Preparation of service report of any complaint attended is a vital document which is prepared by the service engineer when he visits to attend the complaint.  The same is missing and the photographs said to have been annexed with the Reply filed by OP1 and OP3 are also missing.  Had there been a broken screen at the time of visit of OP1 authorized person i.e. OP3. It should have been highlighted by OP3 immediately to the Complainant, and there would not have been any necessity to call another officer by OP3 at the residence of OP1 as it is being stated by the Complainant. 

For the reasons stated above OP1 and OP3 have not been able to establish that the TV Panel was already broken when their service engineer visited the residence of the Complainant on 20.06.2019 whereas the Complainant has enclosed photographs of the TV with minor pin size white spot on the TV screen panel as well as broken screen panel and that he had made complaint for which ID 54623990 was generated by OP1 and the case was assigned to OP3 by OP1 to attend the complaint however the service report of attending the complaint is not produced by OP1/OP3. 

For the reasons stated above, this Commission finds that the Complainant has been able to establish deficiency in service on the part of OPs and directs as follows:

• OP1, OP2 and OP3 jointly and severally shall pay Rs.26,990/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 19.06.2019 to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of this order and Complainant shall simultaneously return the TV in question to them on receipt of the amount. 
•  OP1, OP2 and OP3 jointly and severally shall pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and litigation charges to the Complainant. 

This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the order failing which OP1, OP2 and OP3 jointly and severally shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the total amount of Rs.36,990/- from 19.06.2019 till the date of realization.   

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 03.01.2024.