DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  30^th day of November  2016

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                  Date of filing: 30/04/2016

               : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

                                                      (C.C.No.58/2016)         

Shaju.K.P.

IPI & GPT Quarters,

Kulappully, S.G.Press Post,

Shoranur – 2, Palakkad                                            -       Complainant

(By Adv.Krishnakumar.K)

V/s

1.The Manager

   Sony Branch Office Cochin,

   2^nd Floor, Muscut Tower, SA Road,

   Kadavanthara, Cochin

2.The Manager

    A-Tech Services,

    Sony Authorized Service Centre,

    7/906(1) Sekharipuram Jn,

    Ayyapuram, Palakkad   

(By Adv.P.N.Vinod)

3.The Manager

    Nandilath Agencies, Riyas Complex,

    Mele Pattambi, Palakkad 679 306                         -        Opposite parties

(By Authorised Signatory)

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

Complainant has purchased a home theater of Sony Model HT-IV 300 for Rs.17,499/- on 13-8-2015. After a few days, at the time of its operation complainant heard a jarring unwanted sound from the set. Then the complainant informed about this matter to the 2^nd opposite party. Even after repeated repair, they couldn’t rectify the defect properly. Finally 2^nd opposite party had taken back the set for replacing with new one. Complainant submitted that  after twenty days 2^nd opposite party returned the defective set without rectifying the defect.   Hence the complaint.

Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to replace the defective  system with new one.

After admitting the complaint notices were issued to opposite parties. After receiving the notice 1^st opposite party did not appear before the forum. Hence set exparte. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties appeared before the forum. But they were not filed version.

Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext A1 to A3 were marked from his side.

The following issues are considered

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2.If so, what is the relief ?

Issues 1 & 2

Ext A1 proves that the complainant has purchased home theater of Sony Model HT-IV 300 for Rs.17,499/- on 13-8-2015 from 3^rd opposite party. Ext.A2 warranty card shows that 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the defective home theatre and the product has the warranty up to July 2016. Ext. A3 shows that the product started giving problem from 9-3-2016. From the above documents we came to the conclusion that the defects were occurred within warranty period. So the opposite parties have the liability to replace the defective product with new one.

In the above circumstances we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence we allow the complaint. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the home theatre with the same model.

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is entitled to get cost of Home Theatre along with cost of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only)   

      Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of November  2016.

                                                                                              Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                           Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

                          Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                 Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 –  Invoice dated 13/8/2015  issued by 3^rd opposite party

Ext.A2 –  Warranty Card 

Ext.A3 –  Service Job Sheet issued by 2^nd opposite party

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

 Nil

Cost  

No cost allowed.