DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 20^th  day of September  2016 

Present  : Smt.Shiny.P.R,  President

             :  Smt.Suma.K.P, Member

             : Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member       Date of Filing : 02/05/2015

      CC/62/2015

Mallika,                                               :        Complainant   

W/o.Maheshkumar,

Velekkat House,

Anjumoorthy Mangalam,

Vadakkenchery, Palakkad

(By Adv.Krishnakumar.K)

  Vs   

1.The Proprietor

   Eakay Brothers,

   Keerthy Complex,

   Opp.District Hospital,

   Court Road, Palakkad

2.The Manager

    A-Tech Services

   Sony Authorised Service Center,

   7/906(1), Sekharipuram,

   Ayyappuram, Palakkad

3.The Manager (Zonal)

   Sony India Pvt.Ltd.

   Muscat Tower, Kadavanthara,

   Ernakulam, Kerala                                       :          Opposite parties

                                                      O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President

The complainant has purchased a Sony LED TV KLV-40EX520 and V guard Stabilizer from the 1^st opposite party shop who is the dealer of third opposite party who is the manufacturer of the Sony LED TV on 16/3/2011. Later on the month of February of 2015 LED television was not properly displaying pictures hence the complainant complaint about the same to the first opposite party. As per the request of the first opposite party complainant contacted the second opposite party who is  the authorized service centre  for the Sony products. Later an employee of the second opposite party came and checked the television and told that it has got panel picture dubbing problem and hence the panel has to be changed. Since warranty period has been expired opposite parties told that the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.22800/- for the panel replacement. On 10/03/2015 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- and after the replacement of LCD panel on 17/3/2015 the complainant deposited Rs.12,800/- to the account of second opposite party. But the second opposite party while replacing LED TV with Sony Panel, they have replaced it with Samsung Panel. When the complainant enquired about the same, they informed the complainant that Sony panel is not available in the market.  The complainant has paid money for availing Sony Panel. Complainant submitted that there is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties which caused severe mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to replace the television with a new Sony panel, to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation  and cost of the proceedings.

          Complaint was admitted and notices were issued. After receiving the notice, first opposite party did not appear before the Forum. Hence 1^st opposite party was set exparte. After receiving the notice second and third opposite parties appeared through their authorized agent but no version was filed.

Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext A1to A4 series were marked from the side of complainant. In order to prove the case complainant filed application for the appointment of expert commission. For the proper adjudication of the case that application was allowed and commissioner was appointed. Commissioner examined the Television and filed report which was marked as Ext C1.

The following issues are taken into consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief?

Issues 1 and 2

We have perused the documents filed before the Forum. As per Ext.A1 it is revealed that complainant has purchased a Sony LED Television 40 KLV 40EX520  for     Rs.60432/-from the 1^st opposite party 16/03/2011. Ext.A2 shows that the Television had the problem of panel picture dubbing. Ext A3 revealed that the Sony  LCD panel was replaced with Samsung LCD panel (S40ESL). Perusal of Ext.A4 series make it clear that complainant has deposited Rs.10,000/- on 10-3-2015 and Rs.12,800/- on           17-3-2015 in the account of 2^nd opposite party through Canara Bank. 

Commissioner examined the Television and filed report which was marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 commissioner reported that at the time of examination of the television it was found that opposite parties placed the LED panel (part No LTY400 HM08 S-LCD) of the Samsung having serial number 7HD105395B in the Sony LED Television. Commissioner also reported that Samsung LED panel will not match with mother board of Sony. Similarly Samsung LED panel is having no high image quality, sharpness etc. as compared to Sony LED Television and now this Sony LED panel is not available in the market. Since there is no contra evidence available before us, we are inclined to accept the report of commissioner.  Since there is no documentary evidence against 1^st opposite party, we cannot attribute deficiency in service on  1^st opposite party. Hence 1^st opposite party is  exonerated from the liability. After receiving the money for LED Sony panel, opposite parties 2 & 3  replaced the panel with low quality Samsung LED Panel. This act of opposite parties 2 & 3  amounts to unfair trade practice and cause much  mental agony to the complainant.   In the above circumstances, we are of the view that opposite parties 2 & 3  have the liability to compensate the complainant for mental agony and financial loss suffered.  As the Sony LED panel is not available in the market we cannot direct opposite parties   to place Sony led panel in the Television.

In the result we allow the complaint. Hence opposite parties 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)  as cost of the  proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest per annum for the whole amount  from  the date of order  till  realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the  20^th  day of  September  2016.

                                                                                   Sd/-  Sd/-                                                                                                                    Shiny.P.R                                                                                

                       President

                         Sd/-d/-

                      Suma.K.P

                          Member

                          Sd/-

          V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                        Member

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Bill dated 16/3/11 issued by first opposite party  in the name of complainant

Ext.A2 – Receipt No.1246 dtd. 27/2/15 issued by A Tech Services in the name of

             complainant

Ext.A3 – Retail Invoice dated 17/3/15 issued in the name of complainant

Ext.A4 series  – Copy of Pay in Slip of Cana Bank dated 17/3/15 (2 nos)

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Commission Report

C1 –  Mr.Pradeep.K

Cost

Rs.5,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.