BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 10^th February 2016        

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.: 264/2015    

Complainant/s:                       R.H.Sawakar,

Age: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 15^th Cross, Near Kenchamma Temple, Vidyagiri, Bagalkot, now residing at C/o. Hallikeri, House No.34, Sambrama, Opp Commissioner Officer, Adhyapak Nagar, Hubli 580025.

(By Sri.H.S.Nayak, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:          1)            The Manager, Sony India Pvt Ltd., No.237-240, 13 Cross Road, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Behind Shanti Sagar Hotel, Bengaluru 560038.

2)             Nalini. D, Officer, Customer Relations Bengaluru Customer Centric Division, NOT#239, Pantrapalya Mysore Road, Bengaluru 560039.

3)             Proprietor, M/s. Kandkur Agencies, Opp: Town Police Station, Broad Way, Durgadbail, Hubli.20.

4)             Upadhya Electronics Devices, Emkay Complex, Door No.#71^st Floor, Kusugal Road, Madhura Colony Stop, Hubli 580023.

 (By Sri.H.G.Hanchinal, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to replace the TV, to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation for mental agony, to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, complainant purchased Sony Bravia model KDL 42 W 700b bearing its Sl.No. 3309276 by paying Rs.84,800/- on 29.07.2014. After using the said TV for a month it starts troubleshooting & not working properly. After approach the respondent find defect of negative pictures by the technician. Thereafter respondent 1 and 2 by letter 10.07.2015 assured to carryout the repair. Thereafter respondent’s technician replaced the TV panel. After 3 months from the date of replacement of the panel once again the problem of defective screen appeared. Thereafter it was informed to respondent 3 but not attended. Since 01.06.1915 the said TV is not working properly. Inspite of repeated requests and approaches the respondent 3 did not attended and replaced the set. Even for the legal notice 16.07.2015 the respondents neither complied nor replied which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum all the respondents appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents taken contention that the complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable either in law or on facts as there is no cause of action for the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the respondent in detail went on explaining nature of the product, care and diligence taken during the manufacturing and while delivering the goods manufactured by the respondents and explained in detail the respondents are rendering good and prompt service to its customers. Further the respondents admits approach of the complainant and attend the problems and rectified the problems in time by replacing the defective units and also when the respondent assured for further service the respondent reluctant to avail the service instead demand for replacement of the entire set or to refund the cost which are unwarranted and against to the terms and conditions. There is no any manufactural defects the defects which are sought out are due to external damages attributed to the LCD TV by carelessness of the complainant which do not covers under the warranty. The respondent resist the claim of the complainant submitting that it is not feasible by referring apex courts judgments. Further the respondent contended even though there is no any manufactural defects in order to have wrongful gain making false allegations. In the absence of expert opinion the plea of the complainant cannot be entertained and prays for dismissal of the complaint on those grounds also. Further the respondent taken contention that irrespective of deficiency in service and material defects due to manufactural defects concealing the real facts the complainant falsely issued notice against the respondents on 16.07.2015 & it was replied suitably on 28.08.2015 & in all prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively 
2. Accordingly  
3. As per order

R E A S O N S

P O I N T S 1 & 2

5.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant purchased the TV in question on 29.07.2014. Respondent.1 is the company. While respondent 2, 3 and 4 are customers relation officer.

6.     Now the question to be determined is, whether the TV set in question is suffering from manufactural defects, non set righting by the respondents amounts to deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

7.     Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.

8.     On perusal of sale invoice Ex.C3 there are 2 items one is Sony LED KDL-42W700B bearing Sl.No.3309276 covering warranty as per  Ex.C2 of value Rs.53,187-77 and another item is Sony HTS BDV 3200 bearing Sl.No.3301346 covering warranty as per Ex.C1 of value Rs.20,873-36 including all VAT the complainant has paid in total Rs.84,800/- towards the 2 items.  On perusal of the complaint and evidence the grievance of the complainant with regard to the defect of only TV set item no.1, no grievance against the Home Theatre set, item no.2 of Ex.C3. In reply Ex.C7 the respondents admits the complaint lodged by the complainant with regard to the defects and also attend the same by the technicians and also admits replacement of the panel 2 times as per the job card stated in the Ex.C7. Further the respondent in the said reply and also in evidence and pleadings admits the carryout repairs by replacing the panel within the warranty period. Further defence of the respondent is that when the complainant approached them on 3^rd time they assured to set right the same, but complainant returned demanding for replacement of the entire set. So, the respondent could not able to set right the same as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and further pleaded and contended, in the absence of expert opinion the complainant making false allegation taking contention that there is manufactural defects though the defect is due to external damages attributed due to the negligence of the complainant and as the respondents have attended the defects within warranty period and replaced the LCD Panel. Further contended, for replaced panel there will not be extended warranty. Hence, the respondents are not liable to heed the requests of the complainant for the replacement further.

9.     By this it is evident that the item no.1 of the invoice TV set is suffering from defects and the said defects is still persist. Under those circumstances the respondents cannot take such contention and are liable to set right the set free from defects to serve the purpose of the set by the complainant. Till set righting the same deficiency in service will continues. So also warranty also continues as the defects have been sought out within the period of warranty. In this regard there is no dispute at all. Under those circumstances and as per the evidence led on record the defects is still persist. Interalia the complainant establish his case of deficiency in service against the respondents with cogent and appulsive evidence. Hence, complainant is entitled for the reliefs.

10.   In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmatively and accordingly.

11.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

 Complaint is partly allowed. The respondents are jointly and severally set right the defects by replacing the panel within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Failing to comply the same within stipulated period the respondents shall replace invoice item no.1 with new one within further 30 days. Failing to comply either the compliance ordered the respondents shall refund Rs.53,187-77 the cost of the unit item no.1 of the invoice with interest @9% P.A. from the date of order till realization. The complainant shall immediately approach the respondents and deliver the set under acknowledgement for set right the same without any further delay.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 10^th day of February 2016)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR