DATE OF FILING : 29.6.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  27th  day of   April, 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.188/2016

Between

Complainant       :   Rejikumar A.C., S/o. Chandranpillai,

Krishnapriya House,    

Nedumkandam P.O.,

Thanimoodu, Idukki.

(By Adv:  Gem Korason)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  The Managing Director,

       Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

       A-31, Mohan Co-operative 

Industrial Estate,

      Mathura Road, 

      New Delhi – 110 044.

     (By Adv: KS. Arundas)

2. Madonna Care Centre,

     D. No.XIV/54, Thekkekuttu Building,

     K.K. Road, Kanjikkuzhi,

     Kottayam – 686 004.

          3.  Highrange Home Appliances,

    City Plaza Building,

    Kattappana P.O., Idukki.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

Complainant purchased a LED Sony 42-800 Television from the 3rd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party, for Rs.71,499.99/-, on 7.9.2013.  While the television was playing, it suddenly switched off and not functioning.  This matter was duly informed to the 3rd opposite party.  A technician from 3rd opposite party inspected the set and had informed that there is complaint in the board and the same have to be repaired or replaced and cost for the same is Rs.12000/-.  The technician removed the board from the TV, without any proper care and caution with slanting position.  After three weeks, a technician from the 3rd opposite 

(cont....2)

-  2  -

party came with a new board and installed the same.  After installation there, there was a slight reflection seen and he update the software.  But after updating the software, the television did not switched on.  He informed that the panel of the TV was broken and same has to be replaced and it will cost an amount of Rs.28000/-.  The panel was broken out of tightening of screw in slanting position.  The damage of panel has caused by the negligent act of the technician and opposite parties are liable to compensate for the negligent act of their technician.  The negligence from the side of the technician and wilful neglect from the opposite parties from curing the defects is purely a deficiency in service.

 

In the written version filed by the opposite party had admitted the purchase of the Sony LED TV on 7.9.2013 SR No.4307764, model No.KDL42W800A.  The complainant used the TV with full satisfaction till March, 2016.  After receiving the service request from the complainant, the 1st opposite party immediately sent a technician to inspect the TV set.  A detailed inspection was done based on the main board of the TV was found to be defective and was recommended for replacement, because the TV set was out of warranty.  After fixing the main board, some software issue was noticed and updated the same on 29.3.2016.  During this time, the panel was found to be physically damaged.  An estimate for replacing the panel was given vide job sheet No.J60793555 dated 2.4.2016  The complainant was not ready for the same and started alleging that the technician was negligently opened the TV set.  This allegation is absolutely baseless.  The allegation made by the complainant is that the TV set is having manufacturing defects and is poor quality is false.  This opposite party has promptly responded all complaints of the complainant and has made all possible effort to resolve this problem.  The technician could not identify the later defect while this inspection as it was in off condition.  Hence demanding for brand new TV is unreasonable.  

 

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 and Ext.C1 commission report are marked.

       (cont....3)

-  3  -

The POINT :-  The complainant had purchased a LED Sony 42-800 TV from the 3rd opposite party which was manufactured by 1st opposite party, n 7.9.2013.  Ext.P1 is the tax invoice.  After 2 years of purchase, the TV set became switched off and not functioning.  This matter was duly informed the 3rd opposite party.  A technician came and inspected the set and informed that there is complaint in the board and the same have to be replaced and the  cost for the same is Rs.12000/-.  The technician removed the board without any proper care and caution with slanting position.  After 3 week, he came with a new board and installed  the same.  After installation he says the set need updating and he updated the software, but the TV set did not switched on.  Then he informed that the panel of the TV was broken and same has to replaced for Rs.28000/-.  The damage of panel has caused by the negligent act of the technician by tightening the screw in slanting position.  With the help of an expert, the complainant examined the set and he also admitted that the damage was happened by removing the screw in slanting position.  Ext.C1 is the commission report. 

 

In the written version, opposite party had admitted the purchase of the Sony LED TV on 7.9.2013 and the complainant used the TV with full satisfaction till March, 2016.  After receiving the service request, a technician examined the TV and recommended for replace the board, because the TV set was out of warranty period.  After fixing the board, same software issues noticed and updated the same on 29.3.2016.  Then he noticed the panel of the TV was found damaged and he recommended for replace the same for Job sheet No.J60793585 dated 2.4.2016.  The complainant was not ready for the same.

 

In this case, the opposite parties are not challenged the expert commission report.  The commissioner pointed out, “the Television flat position   

 

 

We, the Forum very much doubtful about the repairing of the technician, he says to replace the board, secondly updating the software and finally the panel damaged.  The complainant alleges that the opposite parties' technician mishandled and damaged the panel of the TV while he carelessly opened the panel and broken it.  The opposite parties are never 

      (cont....4)

-  4  -

challenged or proved the allegation of the complainant.   We think, not providing any  service after selling is a clear case of unfair trade practice.  The complainant has to suffer severe mental and financial hardships which is also to be compensated.  

 

 

The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of the TV  at free of cost, to the satisfaction of the complainant, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.  No cost is ordered.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of April, 2018

 

 

 

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

 

          SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT     

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -    Rejikumar A.C.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -   Retail Invoice.

Ext.C1            -  Commission Report.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

                    SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT