Delhi

North West

CC/181/2014

SUBODH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

20 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

   CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

 

CC No: 181/2014

 

 

No. __________________    Dated : ____________________

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

SUBODH KUMAR JHA S/o SH. RAMESH JHA,

R/O H. No. 129, POCKET-3, SECTOR-25,

ROHINI, DELHI-110085.                              …COMPLAINANT

 

,

 

VERSUS

 

 

 

1. SARGAM ELECTRONICS,

    SARGAM INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,

    498, KOHAT ENCLAVE, PITAM PURA,

    NEW DELHI-110034.

 

2. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

    REGISTERED OFFICE AT: A-31,

    MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDL. ESTATE,

MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044.                …OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

CORAM:  SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT     

               SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

          MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER                   

 

                    Date of Institution: 11.02.2014

                       Date of Decision: 20.11.2017

 

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                                                            ORDER

 

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs underSection 10 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that at the time of purchasing the TV authorized dealer i.e.

CC No. 181/2014                                                                           Page 1 of 8

          OP-1 assured the complainant that Sony TV is the best quality product and it is a reputed company and OP-1 also assured the complainant that no complaint has come in picture against Sony TV and after the assurance given by OP-1 the complainant purchased a Sony Bravia LED TV model 32EX420, Serial No. 9121451, vide retail invoice no. 1982 on 23.10.2011 of Rs.39,900/- from OP-1 and in the month of October-2012, the TV was totally shutdown and did not work as it stopped displaying any picture and the complainant contacted both the OPs and lodged the complaint and one engineer visited the premises of the complainant and checked LED TV and found that basic kit of the LED TV was malfunctioning due to some manufacturing defect in the LED TV and he changed the kit as he told to complainant that defect has been fixed and this LED TV will not trouble again but to the utter shock of the complainant the LED TV again developed the same problem and did not properly work and it was again problem in its picture and the complainant again made a complaint to OP-2 and one engineer visited and he checked it and found that the same problem in kit and told that the complainant that it is a rare defect and he told the complainant that his visiting charge is Rs.225/- and service charge is Rs.600/- and also in expenditure in repair of the same kit. The complainant further alleged that the complainant opposed to pay the amount as

CC No. 181/2014                                                                           Page 2 of 8

          it was assured on the last time that he will not face any problem in the LED TV and that it was rectified properly and why the company is charging for fixing the same problem and why should pay for the manufacturing defect of the company and he refused to repair the same. Thereafter the complainant complained to OP on their official number and also on toll free no. 18001037799 and got complaint no. ID 15147535 dated 09.08.2013 & 15.08.2013 and refused to pay the illegal demand and the customer care representative and his senior assured to the complainant that the matter was under consideration and advice to pay first for repair charge, visiting charge and service charge and it will be returned from company to the complainant within a week or his LED TV will be replaced at the cost and expenses of Sony. The complainant further alleged that as per the OPs official assurance, the complainant paid Rs.2,365/- on 16.08.2013 and also paid Rs.225/- to the visiting engineer under protest.However, the engineer repaired the same but TV has not performing properly and sometimes picture was in faded colour and after expiry of 1 week the complainant contacted officials of OP for the performance of LED TV and refund of his charges but both of OPs started delaying tactics and tried to avoid the complainant on one pretext or another. On 26.01.2014, the complainant again shocked when LED TV again shut down and did not work and the

CC No. 181/2014                                                                           Page 3 of 8

          complainant again made a complaint toOP-2 customer care but no reply was given by the official of OPs regarding the replacement of the LED TV and the complainant sent a legal notice dated 09.09.2013 but no response was given by the OPs and the complainant also made several complaints dated 12.12.2013, 25.12.2013 &27.01.2014 but no one visited the complainant’s premises for the replacementof defective LED TV andthe complainant alleged that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to replace the defective Sony Bravia LED TV, to return Rs.2,365/- & Rs.225/- as repair and visiting charges received from the complainant as well as compensation of Rs.55,000/- for causing him mental pain, agony and harassment and has also sought litigation charges.

3.       The OPs have been contesting the case and filed reply and in the reply, OPs submitted that the products of OP-1 are put through several quality checks before they are released in the market and do not suffer from manufacturing defects and all the allegations in the complaint are absolutely baseless and misplaced. OPs further submitted that OP-1 has even offered a refund of the repair charges received from the complainant for earlier repairs of the TV and the

CC No. 181/2014                                                                           Page 4 of 8

          complainant has been offered best solutions and a new television at a discounted rate i.e. new LCT TV KLD-32W600A at estimated cost of Rs.11,517/- and the complainant has refused to accept the same and OPs further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       The complainant filed rejoinder to reply of OPs and denied the contentions of OPs.

5.       In order to prove his case the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also filed copy of retail invoice no. 1982 dated 23.10.2011 for purchase of Sony LED TV of Rs.39,900/-, copy of cash receipt vide invoice no. HI-End/2012/2928 dated 16.08.2013 of Rs.2,365/-issued by HI-End Solutions, copy of service job sheet issued by    ASC of OP-2 giving estimate of Rs.225/-, copy of warrantee card issued by OP-2 and copy of legal notice dated 09.09.2013 sent by the complainant to the OPs through Regd. A.D. post alongwith postal receipts.

6.       On the other hand on behalf of OP-1 Sh. Manav Ujla, Authorized Representative of OP-2 filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the reply of OPs.

7.                 Before we come to the case and facts let us state that the electronic machine are meant to make the lives of the consumers easier. The

CC No. 181/2014                                                                           Page 5 of 8

          product is required to be free from any sort of defect and if there is any defect in the product the consumer needs to be compensated. In this regard it would be of benefit to note the following two judgments:-

In R. Sachdev Vs. ICICI Bank, FA762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held:-

“What is the use of such goods or article if it loses its utility after a period of one month of its purchase and the object of the Consumer Protection Act, is to safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufacturers or traders for selling substandard or defective goods.”

 

In another case titled Col. Ravinder Pal Brar Vs. Asian Motors, FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007, the Hon’ble State Commission held:-

“The disputes between the consumer and the service providers and traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders and manufactures to refund the cost of the goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumers, cannot be ruled out and in that case parties will relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation.”

 

 

8.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. As per the defence of the OP, a new TV at a discounted rate at an estimated cost of Rs.11,517/- was offered to the complainant which was refused to be accepted by the

CC No. 181/2014                                                                           Page 6 of 8

          complainant. It shows that there has been an inherent and manufacturing defect in the product and it seems  that there is no genuineness in the defence of OPs.

9.       On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his LED TV to OPs within warranty period. Though OPs have tried to rectify the defect which has occurred in the LED TV but the defects have not been removed/corrected and the problem in the LED TV has not been removed. It was the duty of the OPs to rectify the defect or to replace the product. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaint in respect of a new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defects in the product which is a branded LED TV of a world fame manufacturer. It is not expected that a customer/complainant would have purchased LED TV for 2 years only. Accordingly, OP-2 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

10.     Accordingly, the OP-2 is directed as under: -

i)        To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.39,900/-on return of the defective LED TV.

ii)       To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,590/- (i.e. repair and visiting charges).

 

CC No. 181/2014                                                                        Page 7 of 8

ii)       To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation including litigation cost towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.

11.     The above amount shall be paid by the OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

12.     Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 20^thday of November, 2017.

 

BARIQ AHMAD     USHA KHANNA     M.K.GUPTA

(MEMBER) (MENBER)            (PRESIDENT)

 

 

 

 

CC No. 181/2014                                                                           Page 8 of 8