DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 13th day of March 2023..
Filed on: 10.11.2017
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C NO 444/2017
COMPLAINANT
Jithesh, T.K, Achuthan TK, Dreams 6/1/C, Kaninadu P.O., Pin-682 310
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- SONY INDIA, A 18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura, New Delhi-110 044
- MADONA SONY SERVICES, ALLENS CUBE PARADISE ROAD VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM -19.
- AMMINI TRADERS, STATUE AUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA
ERNAKULAM- 682 030.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1) . A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant had purchased LED TV KLV 32W 672E (Model Name) with 30475670 Serial No. From the third opposite party dated 29 August 2017 with Invoice NS 001516 and installed from the first opposite party on 11 September 2017. The complainant noticed the issue that a lot of Black spots in the display and informed the technician when the time of installation. Then the complainant made a complaint to the first opposite parties Via Email on 12 September 2017. The complainant got reference No. 420 40 479 for his replacement request. After one week, the technician came to the complainant’s home and takes some photographs of the TV, and send them to the first opposite party. But they rejected the replacement request and, offer to repair the TV. The complainant sent another mail to the first opposite party that the complainant can't accept any kind of repair on a Factory faulty brand-new TV. The complainant didn't get any reply from the first opposite party. The complainant called several times to the first opposite party for the redressal of his grievances. The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, loss, and hardship caused to the complainant by the opposite parties due to their deficiency in service and the cost of the litigation.
2) . Notice
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The first and third opposite parties received the notice but did not file their versions within the statutory period. Consequently, both the opposite parties are set ex-parte. The second opposite party filed their version.
3). THE VERSION OF THE SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY.
This opposite party is an authorized Service Centre of the first opposite party. As an authorized service centre of the first opposite party, the second opposite party can only act as per the guidelines issued by the manufacturer & principal company. The Sony-led TV model KLV-32W672E IN5 bearing serial number 3047670 was attended by the second opposite party for the complaint regarding the picture of the T.V was not clear. On inspection, it was found that some dust was inside the panel. The second opposite party offered a warranty (Free of Cost) Service which the complainant was not willing to accept. The complainant insisted on a full replacement of the LED. However, the second opposite party reported the complainant’s demand to the manufacturer, but the second opposite party was advised to offer warranty service to the complainant. The defect and inspection report of this case was communicated to the manufacturer by the second opposite party. As an authorized service centre of the first opposite party, the second opposite party can only act as per the warranty terms & conditions of the manufacturer.
4) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 3 documents
Exbt. A1 - The invoice issued by the third opposite party.
Exbt. A2 - The warranty Card issued by the first opposite party.
Exbt.A3- Copies of e-mail communications.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced a copy of the invoice issued by the third opposite party. (Exhibit A-1). This document revealed that the complainant had paid the requisite consideration for the product to the opposite parties. Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased LED TV from the third opposite party dated 29 August 2017 and installed it from the first opposite party on 11 September 2017. The complainant noticed the issue that a lot of Black spots in the display and informed the technician when the time of installation. Then the complainant made a complaint to the first opposite parties Via Email on 12 September 2017. After one week, the technician came to the complainant’s home and takes some photographs of the TV, and send them to the first opposite party. But they rejected the replacement request and, offer to repair the TV. The complainant sent another mail to the first opposite party that the complainant can't accept any kind of repair on a Factory faulty brand-new TV. The complainant didn't get any reply from the first opposite party. The complainant called several times to the first opposite party for the redressal of his grievances.
The second opposite party submitted that they offered a warranty (Free of Cost) Service which the complainant was not willing to accept. The complainant insisted on a full replacement of the LED. the second opposite party reported the complainant’s demand to the manufacturer, but the second opposite party was advised to offer warranty service to the complainant. The defect and inspection report of this case was communicated to the manufacturer by the second opposite party. As an authorized service centre of the first opposite party, the second opposite party can only act as per the warranty terms & conditions of the manufacturer.
The complainant had produced a proof affidavit, the warranty Card issued by the first opposite party, and Copies of e-mail communications along with the invoice issued by the third opposite party.
We have also noticed that a notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite parties but the first and third opposite parties received the notice but did not file their versions within the statutory period. Consequently, both the opposite parties are set ex-parte. The second opposite party filed a version.
Admittedly, the second opposite party is an authorized service centre of the first opposite party. The second opposite party submitted in the version that they were willing to repair the TV to the satisfaction of the complainant. That offer was not accepted by the complainant. Being a service centre, the second opposite party was not competent to replace the TV in question. Hence, we can’t fault with them.
The complainant has filed the Proof Affidavit and 3 documents. All in support of his case. But the first and third opposite parties did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to file their versions.
The first and third opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notices to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the first and third opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The first and third opposite parties have inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the first and third opposite parties in failing to provide the complainant’s desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We found the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the first and third opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The first and third opposite parties shall refund Rs.33,500 /-to the complainant towards the invoice price of the led TV in question.
- The first and third opposite parties shall pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for loss caused to the complainants due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
- The first and third opposite parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The first and third opposite parties be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (ii) above also shall attract interest @9 % from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt Ambily transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 13th day of March 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exbt. A1 - The invoice issued by the third opposite party.
Exbt. A2 - The warranty Card issued by the first opposite party.
Exbt.A3- Copies of e-mail communications.
C.C. No.444/2017
Order dated 13.03.2023
