Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/360

Bobby - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)-III C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058

 

CASE NO. 360/2014

 

MS. BOBBY

R/o 104A, SINGLE STOREY,

3RD FLOOR, RAMESH NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110015.                 

….. Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

 

1. M/S SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.

SHOP NO. A31, I AREA,

MOHAN COOP. IND. ESTATE,

MATHURA ROAD, OKHLA PHASE-II,

OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,

NEW DELHI-110020.                 

….. Opposite Party-1

 

2. M/S STAR ELECTRONICS

SONY AUTHORIZED SERVICE CENTRE,

B-3, C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTER,

NARIANA VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110028.  

….. Opposite Party-2

 

3. ATLANTIC APPLIANCES LTD.

ADD- A-34, RING ROAD,

RAJOURI GARDEN,NEW DELHI-110027.

                                                                           ….. Opposite Party-3

 

O R D E R

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.Brief facts as alleged by the complainant are that she purchased LED TV of make and model Sony Bravia KDL32EX520 for a sum of Rs. 44,900/- on 15.10.2011 from OP-3. The said TV Set stop functioning within 24 months from its purchase and complaint was lodged on 03.10.2013 which was rectified by OP-2 with charges for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. It is alleged that after four months i.e. 08.02.2014 the TV Set again stop functioning and OP-2 demanded a sum of Rs. 11,000/- as repair charges. Thereafter, complainant lodged complaint with OP-1 to repair the product or replace the same but same was refused by OP-1. It is alleged that the product in dispute was suffering from inherent defects and inferior quality was given by the OPs due to which complainant has to suffer not only financially but mentally also. Hence, the present complaint for direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 44,900/- cost of the product or replace the product and compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for mental, agony and physical harassment and litigation expenses.

After notice,OP-1 appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint does not disclose any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of OP, the complaint alleged manufacturing defect but no expert report or opinion filed by complainant. On merits, the OP submitted that the TV worked for almost two years satisfactorily and the same was out of warranty period and the repairs had to be carried out on chargeable basis only. The complainant refused to pay the repair charges, hence, there is no deficiency on part of OP-1. It is averred that the TV Set in question worked properly almost two years, hence, there is no inherent or manufacturing defect. The Complainant himself has not followed the instruction and failed to handle the product in question properly. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder also filed by the complainant to reply of OP-1 controverting stand taken by the OP and reiterating the contents of complaint again. When the parties asked to lead evidence, complainant filed affidavit of evidence reiterating the contents of the complaint on oath and relied on Annexure A to Annexure D. On the other hand, Sh. M.S. Meena Bose, Authorized Representative of OP-1 filed affidavit of evidence testifying the contents of reply on oath.

From the perusal of the documents, it reveals that the product in dispute is out of warranty and it is admitted by the complainant that he paid repair charges after which the product in dispute was repaired by the OP. But the complainant has failed to disclose that after four months the same problem has arisen for which she had paid the repair charges to the OP. The job-sheet dated 03.10.2013 does not stipulates any warranty after repairs. We are of considered view that if the product is not covered under warranty then the complainant is liable to pay repair charges for product in question. There seems no deficiency on part of the OP. Hence, there is no merit in complaint. Resultantly, complaint dismissed.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Copy of order be given as per rules.

Pronounced on _____25th______ September, 2019.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)      (S.S. SIDHU)        (K.S. MOHI)

   MEMBER                       MEMBER          PRESIDENT

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.