Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Sony TV set and after 2 years 9 month the said TV set needed some technical servicing for which the complainant contacted with the authorized service center, M/s Technoplaza, the OP no.1. After thoroughly examining the said TV set the technician of OP no.1 estimated Rs. 17,000/- and accordingly the complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- as advance money on 08.09.2015 and OP no.1 issued money receipt vide invoice no. 6586. It is stated in the petition of complaint that the OP no.1 offered a proposal to the complainant to replace his existing TV set by a new one with the same features prevailing in the existing TV set. The offer of the OP was accepted and accordingly the complainant paid Rs. 16,552/- to the OP no.1 on 26.09.2015. After that the complainant received the new TV set with model KDL-32W700CIN5 (LED TV) on 05.10.2015. It is stated in the petition of complaint that the complainant was under impression that the new TV set would be 3D enabled as the previous one but after installation it has been noticed that the new one was not 3D enabled one. Thereafter the complainant informed the said fact to the OP no.1 as well as the OP no.2, The Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant rushed to the office of the OP no.1 with a request in writing to replace the supplied TV set by a 3D enabled one for which he was ready to bear the extra cost but the OP no.1 refused to accept the same. Then the complainant sent the same letter to the OP no.2 on 06.10.2015 and OP no.2 by sending e-mail requested the complainant to submit the name of the service center along with job sheet which the complainant sent through e-mail on 13.05.2015 to the OP no.2. Thereafter, neither OP no.1 nor OP no.2 did anything to mitigate the grievance of the complainant. Finding no other alternatives the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the OPs to replace the supplied TV set with 3D enabled new TV set, if not possible to refund Rs. 16,552/- with interest @12% along with compensation and litigation cost.
Notice was duly served upon the OPs in spite of that OP no.2 remained abstain from filing W/V. Hence the case against OP no.2 was proceeded ex parte vide order no 5, dated 07.06.2017. OP no.1 contested this case by filing W/V, denying and disputing all the material allegations leveled against them, stating that the complainant has signed the letter of indemnity about the decision of accepting a new model of TV set. Since the complaint related to the service of the OP no.2 the same are not dealt with the OP no.1. The OP has further stated that on request of the complainant he replaced the TV set of the complainant by the model selected by the complainant after visiting several show rooms of OP no.2. The OP no.1 further stated that after watching the performance of the new TV set and being satisfied the complainant has selected the features which has been delivered by OP no.1, as such OPno1 has no deficiency in providing service to the complainant. Accordingly the OP no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Points for determination
- Whether the OPs are deficient in providing service.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the prayer as prayed for.
Decisions with reasons
Admittedly the complainant brought a new TV set by making payment of Rs. 16,552/- to the OP no.1 by replacing his previous Sony TV set.
The complainant specifically alleged that OP no.1 did not deliver the same TV set selected by him. On the other hand OP no.1 stated that he has delivered the specific model selected by the complainant.
On perusal of the money receipt issued by the OP no.1 it appears that the OP no.1 received Rs. 16,552/- to the complainant for a TV model no. KDL32W700C IN5 (LED TV), total consideration price of the said TV set was Rs 39,213.97/ and an amount of Rs 24,758.05/ as discount deducted from the total amount. The complainant agreed that the OP no1 delivered the same TV set mentioned in the money receipt there is no mention of 3D enabled TV in the money receipt issued by the OPno1 from where it can be established that the complainant purchased a TV set with 3D features. Moreover, there are no cogent /relevant documents filed by the complainant to prove his case that the OP no1 did not deliver the TV set booked by him as such the OP no1 is not deficient in providing service to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that since the complainant accepted the exchange offer of the OP no1 and purchased a new TV set by replacing his previous TV set, the OPno2 is not held liable for any defect of the previous TV set of the complainant.
In the result the petition of complainant does not succeed.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
That the complaint case being no RBT/CC/260/2022 is dismissed without cost.
Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.
Dictated and Corrected by
HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar]
MEMBER
