BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 270/2016  Filed on 03/06/2016

ORDER DATED: 17/03/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

                        The complainant purchased a branded new SONY 32” LED TV bearing No.KL32R482B for an amount of Rs.33,391/- from 2^nd opposite party.  Two months after the purchase of the said TV, there a line was seen at the bottom of the TV screen.  The complainant thought that it might be a complaint of the Dish Antina and he contacted to Dish Antina operator and he found that Dish Antina is performing perfectly.  So he informed 3^rd opposite party over telephone and they replied that nothing would be happened since the TV is a branded new one.  On 24/01/2016, while the TV was working, a red colour seen on the right corner of the TV screen and the entire screen became blue and stopped the working of the TV.  The complainant again contacted the 3^rd opposite party on the matter and they registered his complaint and advised him to contact the 1^st opposite party.  After the registration of the complaint the 1^st opposite party sent the TV mechanics and on examination they found that the ‘panel’ have damaged and advise him to contact with the 1^st opposite party and the complainant do the same.  Thought it was within the warranty period, they demanded Rs.13,000/- for the repair and advised that contact with SONY center at Delhi by given phone numbers.  Later the complainant contacted with the sony center at Delhi (2^nd opposite party) over telephone and they directed the complainant to brought the TV set before the 1^st opposite party.  But they did not make any repair for about four months.  The complainant contacted the first opposite party over telephone several times.  But all his attempts were gone in vain which resulted pain and mental agony to the complainant.  Therefore the complainant was compelled to issue a legal notice to the 2^nd opposite party through his counsel demanding the value of the TV Rs.33,391/-.  After receiving the notice, the manager of the 1^st opposite party called the complainant and informed him that the TV would be repaired within ten days and remit Rs.5,000/- in advance.  The complainant remitted Rs.5,000/-.  But no one came for repair the TV.  At last they informed him that the manufacturing of the ‘panel model TV’ were stopped and if he is interested to purchase a new TV that would give in a discount rate and demanded that to take a DD for Rs.687/-.  So the new TV would be given within 20 days, but they failed to do so.  The complainant again approached to the 1^st opposite party and he was informed that the new TV would be delivered only after the payment of Rs.12,900/-  and he was compelled to put his signature on some forms written in English.  The act of the opposite parties were irresponsible and which amounts to the deficiency of service and also caused financial loss and large amount of mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.       

                        Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions.  The complainant had purchased a sony television from 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant approached the service center on 01/12/2016 with the issue of “No Picture”.  The engineers duly examined the TV set and found that the panel of TC was broken due to physical damage/external cause.  Opposite parties stated that the complaint is false frivolous and vexatious and has been only filed with malafide intention just for harassing them.  There is no deficiency on service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  There is no special warranty on display panel and hence the repair shall be done on payment of charges and offered concessional price on the purchase of new TV set from current range of sony TV complainant rejected both the offers.

                        Complainant filed affidavit and documents.  Ext.P1 to P5 & C1 marked.  Complainant PW1 cross examined by opposite parties.  PW2 is the expert commissioner examined by opposite parties.  No oral evidence produced by opposite parties.

                        Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether complainant entitled for relief?

We perused relevant documents on record.  Ext.P1 is the warranty card showing that this warranty is valid up to September 2015.  Ext.P4 is the receipt shows that paid Rs.687/-.  The complainant stated that two months after the purchase of TV defect was seen on the screen of television.  The complainant take a DD for Rs.687/- to purchase a new TV.  The opposite parties had trying to replace the old TV for an amount of Rs.12,900/- no contrary evidence produced by opposite parties.  In commission report the expert commissioner noted that “prima facie the defects may happened due to a nearby heat source but after disassembling the LCD Panel it was found that the inner side was severally burned.  So it is clear that the heat was produced internally.  It is due to the defect of LCD panel and interfacing card or logic board.  Commission report conclusion:-

“The picture must be visible in the areas except the portion where the polarizing film is peeled off.  Therefore the argument of SONYSERVICE is not acceptable.  This problem is very rare and may be due to some manufacturing defects”. 

                        Expert Commission was examined as PW2.  The opposite parties have not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant. 

In view of the above discussions we find that the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

In the result complaint allowed.  We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.33,391/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety One Only) as the price of TV and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.  After complying the order the opposite parties can take back the TV set from the complainant.      

                        A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17^th day of March 2022.

   R

C.C.No.270/2016

          APPENDIX

I           COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                   NIL

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                  NIL

V         COURT EXHBIT:

                                                        Sd/-

PRESIDENT

R