Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/135/2015

M/s.Sumathy Munendran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Sony India Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

G.Munendran

18 Apr 2022

ORDER

                                                                                                 Date of Complaint Filed: 23.03.2015

                                                                                                                                                             Date of Reservation     : 04.04.2022

                                                                                                                                                             Date of Order              : 18.04.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:   TMT. B JIJAA, M.L.,                                        : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,       :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II

 

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 135/2015

MONDAY, THE 18^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

Sumathy Munendran, 

Flat No.501, West Minster Block,

Victoria Towers, 37 Rajiv Gandhi Road,

Kazhipattur 603 103.                                                                                                                                                 ... Complainant                     

..Versus..

1. The Managing Director,

    Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Regd. Office: A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

    Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044.

 

2. The Manager,

    “Sai Sriyas Krishna Towers”

    No.72, Poonamallee Road,

    Gandhi Nagar, Ekkaduthangal,

    Chennai  600 032.

 

3. The Managing Director,

    M/s. CTech Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

    Authorised Sony TV Service Centre,

    No.36, Muthu MariammanKoil Street,

    Off Taramani Velacheri Road,

    Chennai  600 113                                                                                                                                                    .…Opposite Parties

 

******

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant          :     G. Munendran

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     :    JP. Karunakaran

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of both the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for Opposite Parties we delivered the following:

ORDER

1. Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

 

The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to deliver a new Sony Colour TV Model KLV40R4838 or any other Model of similar description as committed by the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties against the paid sum of Rs.21,630/- and to pay an interest @ 18% p.a., on the payment of Rs.10,000/- made by Complainant for panel replacement until the date of refund made to Complainant and to furnish the copies of all emails between the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Party with regard to Complainant’s Sony TV and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship being suffered by Complainant since October 2013 until this issue is resolved and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of these proceedings.

2. Brief facts of the case of the Complainant:-

 

The Complainant purchased a Sony 40” LCD TV bearing Sl.No. KLV – 40V300A – 6208473 on 15.01.2008 along with Home Theatre Sound System from Vasanth & Co., T.Nagar, Chennai for a value of Rs.1,06,000/-. After 5 years, in the month of October, 2013 the said TV Screen suddenly shrunk to 1/3^rd size although the picture was clear, which was reported to the 1^st Opposite Party call centre on 18.10.2013 followed by another complaint dated 16.12.2013. The Complainant was advised to contact the 3^rd Opposite Party since they are their authorized service agent. During October 2013 the 3^rd Opposite Party attended the complaint and informed that the panel to be changed and the replacement of the panel would cost about Rs.22,000/- and demanded Rs.10,000/- as advance for procuring the panel from the 1^st Opposite Party and the remaining to be paid on installation of panel, in case of non-availability of panel, a new Sony 40” LED TV equivalent to the value of said Sony TV would be handed over with no extra cost.  Believing in good faith  a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been  paid to the 3^rd Opposite Party  by way of Cheque drawn on State Bank of Mysore, T.Nagar Branch. Despite having encashed the advance cheque, there was no response for nearly two months. After follow up the 3^rd Opposite Party brought a panel which was not suitable to the said Sony TV. The 3^rd Opposite Party, who brought the wrong panel, informed the Complainant that a suitable panel would be indented again with 1^st Opposite Party and would be installed as soon as received.  Thereafter there was no response from 3^rd Opposite Party, only after 5 months, the 3^rd Opposite Party informed that the production of the said panel was stopped. After having waited for nearly 7 months from October 2013, the 3^rd Opposite Party called up and informed the Complainant followed by an email dated 16.04.2014 that the 1^st Opposite Party is dispatching a new Sony 40” LED TV subject to payment of Rs.21,630/- by way of Demand Draft payable at Chennai in favour of  the 1^st Opposite Party  and agreed for refund of Rs.10,000/- taken as advance. Despite the promise of free replacement of New TV conveyed by the 3^rd Opposite Party, the Complainant left with no option but to comply with the demand of the Opposite Parties on 08.05.2014, upon  confirmation  of 3^rd Opposite Party and also had handed over a copy of purchase Bill of the said Sony Colour TV. The Complainant had not received Sony Colour TV Model KLV40R4838 as promised in Email dated 16.04.2014 by 3^rd Opposite Party, which made the Complainant’s husband to visit the office of the 3^rd Opposite Party to know about the status of her Sony Colour TV went in vain. On the contrary, the 3^rd Opposite Party informed that the 1^st Opposite Party is not inclined to send the promised TV as committed by them and demanded Rs.50,000/- for sending the New Model Sony TV, inspite of their promises and receipt of Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.21,630/-. On 09.05.2014 the Complainant refused to pay additional sum demanded by the Opposite Parties and the request to share the emails communications between the 3^rd Opposite Party and 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties was refused by the 3^rd Opposite Party. There after she had got refund of Rs.10,000/- after 9 months, which caused suffering interest loss coupled with several visits made by her husband to 3^rd Opposite Party by car. It is pertinent that the Opposite Parties continued to retain the Demand Draft of Rs.21,630/-.  The inordinate delay and callous attitude of the Opposite Parties coupled with gross deficiency in service and their utter unfair trade  practice caused her to send legal notice dated 02.08.2014 seeking to honour their commitment as promised by 3^rd Opposite Party with approval from 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, for which a reply has been sent by 2^nd Opposite Party with undue delay on 28.08.2014 expressing their inability to deliver suitable panel for the said TV and demanded 75% of the value of a new Sony TV of any of their current BRAVIA Model TV, which is against the promised commitment. The email communications made between March 2014 to May 2014 would show the bonafides of the Complainant. Further during 2^nd week of September 2014 the Bankers Cheque of Rs.21,630/- has been returned without any proper covering letter. Thus the act of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties in holding back the payment of Rs.10,000/- and the Banker’s cheque of Rs.21,630/- unduly for a longer period clearly points the admission on the obligation of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party to replace the Sony TV of similar description and holding the said amounts without replacement caused her enormous amount of mental agony and huge monetary loss. Thus the 1^st  and 2^nd Opposite Parties committed gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as envisaged under Sections 2 (1) (c) and 2 (1) (r) of Consumer Protection Act,1986. The Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1) (b) (i) and 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence the Complaint.

3. Brief facts of the case of the Opposite Parties:-

The 1^st Opposite Party is engaged in the business of distribution and marketing of various electronics items under the brand name of “Sony” and it holds a reputed position in the field of electronics. The products of the 1^st Opposite Party are sold to its customers through a network of its authorized dealers and the after sales, services on those products are provided through a network of its authorized service centres across the country. The Complainant herein had admittedly purchased a Sony Bravia TV bearing Model No. KLV-40V300A bearing Serial No.6208473 on 15.01.2008. The 1^st Opposite Party provides a warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. The Complainant herein admittedly without any sort of defect after enjoying the subject TV for 5 years and 9 months approached the authorized service centre of the 1^st Opposite Party i.e., the 3^rd Opposite Party for the very first time on 18.10.2013 with respect to “Lines on Screen”. On inspection it was learnt that the panel was damaged and needs to be replaced. The said TV was already in the out of warranty period, a repair estimate amounting to Rs.21,630/- was informed to the Complainant by the 3^rd Opposite Party. Since subject TV of the Complainant was an old one, its spare parts were not available with the Opposite Parties and hence, the Opposite Parties intimated the same to the Complainant. It is submitted that the subject TV could not be repaired as the same was out of warranty, only chargeable service is available for the complainant and the faulty part was not available for replacement and therefore, the demand draft given by the Complainant was duly returned to the Complainant.

        The Opposite Parties as a goodwill gesture, offered the Complainant herein to exchange the TV with another Model by paying 75% of the actual price i.e., at a discount of 25% on MRP. The Complainant refused to accept the offer of the Opposite Parties and was adamant to get it replaced by paying just the estimation cost provided by the 3^rd Opposite Party for repair of the subject TV. Further contended the 3^rd Opposite Party inadvertently informed the Complainant that the same shall be replaced by paying the estimation cost, however, the same was rectified as per the policies of the 1^st Opposite Party, since the subject TV was more than 5 years old, the same could only be replaced by paying 75% of the actual price. The same was also duly informed to the Complainant. The electronic goods have                 restricted life and the answering Opposite Parties cannot be held liable forever for the same.

        The Complainant submitted her Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments.  On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-12 were marked. The opposite parties has submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments.

5.    The Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the Complaint?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any other relief?

6.     Point No.1:-

Admittedly the Complainant had purchased Sony 40” LCD TV of the 1^st Opposite Party on 15.01.2008 and same was running without any defect till October, 2013, and after 5 years from the date of purchase during October, 2013 the screen of the said TV shrunk to 1/3^rd though the picture appears to be clear. A complaint was given on 18.01.2013 to the 3^rd Opposite Party, who attended the complaint and found that the panel of the said TV to be replaced which costs Rs.22,000/- and on 18.10.2013 an advance of Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque was collected by the 3^rd Opposite Party for procuring the panel from the 1^st Opposite Party, with an undertaking to pay the balance amount to be paid on installation of a new panel. The said Cheque of Rs.10,000/- has been encashed on 21.10.2013 by the 3^rd Opposite Party as found in Ex.A-2.  There was no response for two months against the complaint given by the Complainant on 16.12.2013 and thereafter the 3^rd Opposite Party attended the complaint for replacement of panel which does not suit the said TV, who had informed the Complainant for replacement of suitable panel, if not available would arrange for replacement of a New Sony TV on request with 1^st Opposite Party. Ex.A-3, the Duplicate Purchase Bill as required by the 3^rd Opposite Party has been submitted for replacement of a New Sony TV as promised by 3^rd Opposite Party. By notice dated 24.03.2014 which is Ex.A–4, the 3^rd Opposite Party has been informed about the delay of 7 months in resolving the issue and hence requested to resolve the same. The  3^rd Opposite Party by its email dated 16.04.2014 Ex.A-5 sent at 17.55 hours to the Complainant / Complainant’s husband had requested to arrange for  payment by Demand Draft for Rs.21,630/- in favour of Sony India Pvt Ltd payable at Chennai and offered a New Model KLV – 40R4828. It is evident from Ex.A-6, Ex.A-7, Ex.A-8 the Complainant had taken Demand Draft in favour of M/s Sony India Pvt Ltd., for a sum of Rs.21,630/-, which was acknowledged by the Opposite Party, and an assurance that Rs.10,000/- would be refunded within two days.

        Ex.A-9 to Ex.A-10 would reveal that a legal notice dated 02.08.2014 was sent to the 1^st & 3^rd Opposite Parties seeking to honour their commitment as promised by 3^rd Opposite Party with approval from 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties, for which a reply notice was sent by 2^nd opposite Party with undue delay on 28.08.2014 expressing their inability to deliver suitable panel for the said TV but demanded 75% of the value of a new Sony TV of any of their current BRAVIA Model TV, which is against the promised commitment.  The Counsel for Complainant contended that the advance payment of Rs.10,000/- has been returned after nine months.  Further during 2^nd week of September 2014 the Bankers Cheque of Rs.21,630/- has been returned without any proper covering letter or reply. The 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties in holding back the payment of Rs.10,000/- and the Banker’s cheque of Rs.21,630/- unduly for a longer period clearly points the admission on the obligation of 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Party to replace the Sony TV of Similar description and holding the said amounts without replacement caused the Complainant enormous amount of mental agony and huge monetary loss.

        The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that the 1^st Opposite Party is not responsible for the receipt of the advance amount from the Complainant, as the same has taken place between the Complainant and the officials of the 3^rd Opposite Party. Further, contended that spare parts of the subject TV were not available with the Opposite Parties and intimated the same to the Complainant and the subject TV could not be repaired as the same was out of warranty and the faulty part was not available for replacement hence the Demand Draft was duly returned to the Complainant. Further contended that the replacement demanded by the Complainant was contrary of warranty and the Policies of the 1^st Opposite Party. Further, submitted that the 1^st Opposite Party would not be liable and responsible for the promises or assurances given by the officials of the 3^rd Opposite Party and any such promises or assurances would not bind the 1^st Opposite Party. As the said TV is out of warranty and more than 5 years old, the complainant is not entitled for replacement with new sony Colour TV.

        We are of the considered view that the payment of Rs.10,000/- towards advance for replacing Panel was refunded with inordinate delay and without any justification in holding the same by the 3^rd Opposite Party and the admission of retuning the Demand Draft by the Opposite Party without mentioning the date of such return in spite of the mentioning made in the complaint as the Banker’s Cheque of Rs.21,630/- was returned during second week of September 2014, we find the said return of Banker’s cheque of Rs.21,630/- is also with inordinate delay and without any justification in holding the same by the 3^rd Opposite Party, inspite of chargeable service opted by the complainant, we find that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

7. Point No.2:-

As point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant and found that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for their deficiency in service and for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered partly in favour of the Complainant.

8. Point No.3

        We are of the considered view that the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief.

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. Hence, the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for their deficiency in service and for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost. The above amounts shall be payable within 6 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 6^th day of April 2022.

 

  

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:

 

Ex.A-1	15.01.2008	Duplicate Bill of Vasanth & Co; for purchase of Sl.No. KLV-40V300A-6208473 (Sony Colour TV 40”)
Ex.A-2		Copy of the Bank Statement showing payment of Rs.10,000/- made to Third Opposite Party as advance for Panel Replacement
Ex.A-3	20.02.2014	Email from the Complainant sent to the third Opposite Party
Ex.A-4	24.03.2014	Registered letter sent to the Third Opposite Party
Ex.A-5	16.04.2014	Email from the Third Opposite Party to the Complainant seeking payment of Rs.21,630/- in favour of the Second Opposite Party.
Ex.A-6	06.05.2014	Email from Complainant to the third Opposite Party
Ex.A-7	08.05.2014	Copy of Banker’s Cheque in favour of the Second Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.21,630/-
Ex.A-8	09.05.2014	Acknowledgement of receipt of Bankers Cheque for Rs.21,630/- and assurance of refund of Rs.10,000/- within two days by the Third Opposite Party
Ex.A-9	02.08.2014	Legal Notice sent to 1st & 3rd Opposite Parties
Ex.A-10		Acknowledgement card of Legal Notice from the Third Opposite Party
Ex.A-11	22.08.2014	Letter to the Complainant and her Counsel from the Second Opposite Party
Ex.A-12	09.09.2014	Envelope of the Third Opposite Party which contained Banker’s Cheque of Rs.21,630/- issued by the Complainant in favour of the Second Opposite Party as sought by the Third Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:

 

-NIL-

 

 

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                             MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT