Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/169/2018

Dr.Girish S/o Late B.Veerabhadrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory,Sri Raghavendra Music Center - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

03 Jan 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:03.09.2018

DISPOSED  ON:03.01.2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:169/2018

 

DATED:  3^rd JANUARY 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :    PRESIDENT                            B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT	Dr. Girish, S/o Late Veerabhadrappa, Aged about 44 years, Basaveshwaranagara, Behind Bapuji School, Chitradurga Karnataka State.     (Rep by Sri.C.M. Veeranna, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1.The Authorised Signatory, Sri. Raghavendra Music Centre, Vasavi Mahal Road, Chitradurga.   2. The Authorised Signatory, Sony India Pvt. Limited, 2nd Floor, JNR City Centre, no. 30, Rajaram Mohan Roy Road, Sampangiramanagara, Bangalore.560027.   3. The Authorised Signatory, Shrusti Service Centre, Authorised Service Centre For Sony India Consumables, 609, 2nd Main, 9th Cross, Ist Floor, Nijalingappa Badavane, Davanagere-5.   (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate for OP No.1 and 2 & Sri.S. Venkatesh, Advocate for OP No.3)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP NO.1 and 2 to refund the price of TV i.e., Rs.55,100/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards costs and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, she purchased Sony company E LED TV on 23.01.2018 from OP No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.55,100/- and the same was installed by OP No.1 in the house of the complainant.  After lapse of six months, there was some defects found in the above said TV.  The complainant intimated the same to OP No.1.  After receiving the complaint from the complainant, the OP No.1 deputed a technical person to the house of complainant for inspection and to rectify the defects found in the TV.  Thereafter the same problems arise in the TV.  Again the complainant intimated the same to the OP No.1, the OP No.2 is the manufacturer and OP No.3 is the service centre.  The OP No.1 has intimated the complainant to lodge a complaint before the OP No.3, who is the service centre at Davanagere.  Accordingly, OP No.3 sent their boy to inspect the TV, who obtained photocopy of the TV only and never rectified the defects found in the TV.  Again the complainant approached OP No.1 and OP No.3 told that, there is a manufacturing defect and to contact OP No.2.  Accordingly, the complainant intimated to OP No.2 about the defects found in the TV through e-mail.  But OP No.2 never taken any response to rectify the defects found in the TV.  The complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs, the notice has been served to the OPs.  The OP No.1 has replied to the said notice.  The cause of action for filing this complaint has arisen at Chitradurga which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum on 16.08.2018when the OP No.1 and 2 have not attended the repairs nor refund the product amount which is a deficiency of service and prayed for allowing the complaint.

3.     On service of notice to the OPs, Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and filed version.  Sri. S. Venkatesh, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and 3 and filed their version.

OP No.1 has stated in its version admitting that, the complainant has purchased the Sony company E LED TV from OP No.1 and the same was installed by the mechanic of OP No.1.  It is further submitted that, the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this complaint and the same is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine.  The contents of the complaint are denied as false.  The OP No.1 is only a dealer, whatever the material supplied by the manufacturer, the same are selling to the consumers on commission basis.  The OP No.1 is not the manufacturer, if any defects found in the material, the complainant is at liberty to approach the OP No.2 for rectifying the same and hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

OP No.2 filed version stating that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The allegations made in the complaint are denied s false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is submitted that, after purchasing the said TV, the complainant approached the service centre on 21.07.2018, by that time the TV was physically in damaged condition.  The service centre without any delay, immediately attended the complaint and inspected the TV.  Upon inspection, it is found that, the display panel of the TV was broken.  The Service Engineer upon inspection observed that, the cause of damage was entirely external in nature or can say due to the negligence of the complainant.  The TV was brought to the Service Centre   physically in damaged condition, the warranty stood void as per warranty policy.  Due to warranty, the Service Centre shared an estimated cost of Rs.22,269/- towards replacing the display panel with the complainant.  The complainant instead of approving the said estimation started raising unreasonable demands.  The sole purpose of the complainant seems to derive undue benefits from the answering OPs.  Whatever the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint are fully/totally denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The complainant has filed this complaint only to grab benefit from the OPs and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-9 got marked.  OP No.1 has examined one Sri.P. Jayaprakash, the Manager as DW-1 and OP No.2 has examined one Smt. Meena Bhose as DW-2 abd relied on Ex.B-1 and B-10 documents and closed their side.

5.     Arguments heard.

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs are held liable to replace the defective TV with new one or return the price of the TV and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, the complainant has purchased one Sony company E LED TV from OP No.1 on 23.01.2018 by paying an amount of Rs.55,100/- with one year warranty.  The service of the OP No.1 installed the above said TV in the house of complainant.  After lapse of 6 months there was some defects found in the TV i.e., some crack lines and blurring in the said TV.  The complainant intimated the same to OP No.1, the OP No.1 informed the complainant to approach OP No.3 who is service centre of Sony Company at Davanagere.  Accordingly, the complainant informed the same to OP No.3, OP No.3 sent their technical person to inspect the TV to find the defect found in the TV.  But the Technical person of OP No.3 visited the house of the complainant and obtained photo of the TV, but never rectified the problems found in the TV.  Again the complainant approached the OP No.1 on 28.06.2018 and informed about the defects but, it went in vain.  By that time, the OP No.1 told the OP No.3 that, it has visited the house of the complainant and rectified the problem found in the TV.  By that time, OP No.3 send the Technical person to the house of the complainant along with the service boy of the OP No.1 for inspection but, the technical person of the OP No.2 has not tried to solve the problem found in the TV but, the service boy of OP No.1 tried to solve the problem, but the problem was not solved.  Again the service of the OP No.1 intimated the complainant that, there is manufacturing defect in the TV.  Accordingly, the complainant intimated the same to the OP No.2 through e-mail but, the OP No.2 never come forward to rectify the problems found in the TV.  The OP No.1 admits that, the complainant has purchased the TV on 23.01.2018 and paid a sum of Rs.55,100/-.  The OP No.1 is only a dealer, whatever the materials supplied by the manufacturer, those materials will be sold by it to the consumer on commission basis.  The OP No.1 is not the manufacturer and OP No.3 is only the service centre.  If any defects found in the TV, the OP No.3 is only the competent person to rectify the defects.  Accordingly, the OP No.3 send the mechanic to the house of the complainant.  By that time, the mechanic has obtained photo of the TV.  Lastly the OP No.1 says that, there is a manufacturing defects and has to approach OP No.2, the manufacturer for replacement or to change the panel board if it is broken.  The main contention of the complainant is that, the panel board of the TV was broken.  The version filed by the OPs are clearly shows that, there is no dispute between the complainant and OPs that, the complainant has purchased the Sony Company E LED TV from OP No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.55,100/-.  After using the said TV for 6 months, there was some defects found in the TV, which was not rectified by the OPs even the complainant approached the OPs so many times, which is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2, the manufacturer.  

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant, OPs.  There is no dispute between the parties with regard to purchasing of TV by the complainant from OP No.1 on payment of Rs.55,100/- on 23.01.2018 as per Ex.A-1.  The contention of OP No.2 and 3 is that, there is a damage found in the external of the TV and not the internal.  Hence, the OP No.2 i.e., the manufacturer is not responsible for the breakage of the panel board.  But the documents produced by the complainant clearly shows that, the damage found in the TV is only on account of manufacturing defect.  The OP No.3 says that, there is an external damage and not the internal that reason is not sufficient to disprove the case of the complainant.  The main duty of the manufacturer is to solve the problem of the consumer.  In this case, the OP No.2 failed to solve the problem found in the TV, it is its duty to settle the problem.  Hence, OP No.2 has committed deficiency of service and OP No.2 is only responsible to solve the problem.   Viewed from any angle, we don’t find any reason to come to the conclusion that, OP No.1 and 3 have committed deficiency of service on their part as they are the dealer and service centre.  Hence, OP No.2 is held responsible to replace the TV or to refund the amount collected from the complainant. Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to replace new Sony – 43 – X – 7500 E LED TV to the complainant.  If fails to replace the same, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to return an amount of Rs.55,100/- along   with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of purchase i.e., 23.01.2018 till realization. 

It is further ordered that the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- costs of the proceedings.

Complaint as against OP No.1 and 3 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 03/01/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)     

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined onbehalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  P. Jayaprakash by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2:  Smt. Meena Bhose by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked onbehalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Tax invoice dated 23.01.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Warranty card
03	Ex-A-3:-	Complaint letter of sony bravia dated 30.01.2018
04	Ex-A-4:-	Letter by complaint for repair
05	Ex-A-5:-	Online complaint letter dated 16.07.2018
06	Ex-A-6:-	Legal notice dated 16.08.2018
07	Ex-A-7:-	Reply notice dated 30.08.2018
08	Ex-A-8:-	Reply notice by OP No.1 dated 30.08.2018
09	Ex-A-9:-	2 Postal receipts

 

Documents marked onbehalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter dated 19.08.2018 by Shristi Enterprises
02	Ex-B-2:-	Resolution copy of the board of directors of Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,
03	Ex-B-3:-	Tax invoice dated 23.01.2018
04	Ex-B-4:-	Warranty card
05	Ex-B-5:-	Photos
06	Ex-B-6:-	Estimate dated 21.07.2018
07	Ex-B-7:-	Tax invoice dated 21.07.2018
08	Ex-B-8:-	Legal Notice dated 16.08.2018
09	Ex-B-9:-	Reply Letter by Sony dated 30.08.2018
10	Ex-B-10:-	Postal receipts

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**