Delhi

East Delhi

CC/694/2013

SURESH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

05 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 694/13

 

Shri Suresh Sharma

E-202, Nagarjuna Apartments

Mayur Vihar – I

New Delhi – 110 096                                                    ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Sony India

A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate

Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044                                 ….Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 27.08.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 05.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 07.04.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Suresh Sharma against Sony India (OP), praying for directions to OP to repair TV set or refund the cost of TV less repair cost or replacement without charges, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards physical strain and mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.       The facts in brief are that on 20.10.2009, the complainant purchased a Sony Bravia LCD TV KLV-221550A from Lotus Super Market, Indore for Rs. 19,500/- vide bill no. 02R908099.  On 15.06.2013, the said LCD abruptly stopped functioning for which representative of OP visited the complainant on 16.06.2013, but issue could not be resolved.  The said LCD was sent to the service centre on 19.06.2013 where estimate for the cost of repair was given as            Rs. 4,610/- including transportation charges of Rs. 337/-.  It is stated that on 30.06.2013, the complainant was informed that the spare part required for repair was not available, so the complainant was offered new TV after paying repair charges.  The complainant has stated that he had checked the market price of the offered TV (Sony Bravia 22B X350) which was less, due to which the complainant requested for either repairs of his set or to make an acceptable offer.  The said offer was declined by OP, hence the present complaint.

          Complaint has annexed invoice dated 21.10.2009, receipt dated 16.06.2013 issued by engineer of OP, job sheet dated 22.06.2013, online comparison of TVs. 

3.       OP was served with the notice of the complaint, thereafter, they filed their reply, where they stated that OP is a reputed company with network of authorized dealers and authorized service centres.  It was stated that the product was out of warranty and as per terms and conditions, OP was liable to provide free of cost repair and replacement on the spare parts only during the warranty period.  As the product was out of warranty, the repairs were chargeable as the said LCD had been purchased 3.8 years back.  It was submitted that due to the changing and advancement in technology, the spare parts for the said LCD were not available.  It was also stated that OP had offered the complainant that he could purchase the LCD Model No. KLV-22B X 350 after paying           Rs. 4,270/- which was duly accepted. 

          It was submitted that the said offer was only for the sake of customer satisfaction.  Thus, no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice could be attributed on their part. 

4.       Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both parties, where complainant examined himself. 

Ms. Meena Bose, authorized representative of OP, examined herself and relied on Ex.RW1/1-Board Resolution and Ex.RW1/2-copy of warranty terms.

5.       We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP.  Perusal of the record reveals that OP had offered model with equivalent features at MRP of Rs. 14,900/- for an offered amount of Rs. 4,610/- as well as one year warranty on purchase of new product.  The complainant has nowhere alleged manufacturing defect, it was only after more than 3.5 years the complainant approached OP for repairs.  In today’s world of fast developing technology, OP cannot be held responsible for non availability of spare part, despite that OP has offered equivalent model, which was accepted by the complainant and retracted later on.  Thus, we find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of OP.

The present complaint is devoid of any merits.  However, as OP had offered to the complainant vide letter dated 10.07.2013, the complainant is at liberty to accept the said offer within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed without orders to any cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                   Member            

     

 

 

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President