DATE OF FILING: 1.8.2013.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 26.4.2016.
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
Brief fact of the case is that the complainant purchased one Sony Bravia LCD Television Model KLV-22C X 350 from the O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.15,900/- with tax vide retail invoice No. 87, TIN No. 21204900377 on dated 29.6.2012 to gift his sister on her marriage.
2. It has been alleged by the complainant that after installation of the aforesaid T.V. in her sister’s house when it was playing, no picture was visible on the screen of it except a “dotted lines” on it. The complainant intimated this fact to O.P.No.1 and appraised him about the defect as well as requested him to replace the same by installing a new one in order to avoid insult to him and mental agony to his sister in her in laws house. But the O.P.N o.1 did not replace the T.V.
3. The O.P.No.1 advised the complainant to inform the matter to O.P.No.2& 3 through a written complaint for making inspection of the T.V. mechanical Engineer. Thereafter, the complainant issued a written complaint to O.P.No.2& 3 and an Engineer was deputed by O.P.No.2& 3 to inspect the T.V. After inspection the engineer informed about the said defect and the same was admitted by the O.P.No.1 and he assured to replace the same with a new one on getting stock within a period of one month.
4. On dated 22.1.2013 the complainant received an E-mail from O.P.No.2 who denied to replace the T.V. by installing a new one and again the complainant approached the O.P.No.1 with the said e-mail letter but the O.P.No.1 avoided to replace the T.V. Then the complainant issued a registered notice through his Advocate on 6.2.2013 to the O.Ps.
5. After receiving the legal notice from the complainant the O.Ps replied through his Advocate dated 14.2.2013 not to replace the T.V. with a new one. On 7.3.2013 the complainant again issued another request letter to the O.Ps. Finding no other way, at last the complainant filed a case against the O.Ps with a prayer to replace the old T.V. with a new one and other reliefs as the Forum deems fit. In supports of his case the complainant filed the following documents which are attached to the case record.
6. Notices were duly served to the O.Ps and O.P.No.1 did not appeared and hence declared as set exparte on dated 21.4.2014 by the Forum.
7. Opposite Party Nos 2 & 3 appeared through his learned Advocate on dated 5.11.2013 and filed a written version on dated 17.12.2013 with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. In their written version the O.P.No.2 & 3 admitted that the complainant had purchased a Sony LCD bearing Model No. KLV 22C X350 & Serial No.3256817 on dated 29.6.2012 from the O.P.No.1. The Opposite Parties also admitted that the warranty period was one year on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and can not be held liable for the claims outside the scope of the warranty. They further stated that the product was covered under warranty and not guarantee. Therefore the question of replacing the LCD with the new one and the refund of the entire amount of the same is not possible. The complainant after seven month made first complaint on January 2013 about the defect in the LCD and the Opposite Parties were deputed Service Engineer and the Service Engineer informed the complainant that as the LCD is covered under warranty, the necessary rectification of the LCD will be carried out free of cost but the complainant did not agreed for the same and insisted on free of cost replacement of the LCD with the new one which is totally in contrary to the terms of the warranty duly agreed by the complainant at the time of its purchase. The complainant vide legal notice dated 6.2.2013 again sought for the replacement of the LCD with the new one and raised allegations of deficiency in service on the Opposite parties. The Opposite Parties replied on 14.2.2013 to the complainant against his legal notice and requested the complainant to allow for the necessary rectification of the LCD but the complainant ignored the request. The Opposite Parties cited several decisions of the Hon’ble National Commissions in the written version. In support of their case the O.P.No.2& 3 filed following documents to defend their case.
(A) A Xerox copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Dt.4.7.2011.
(B) A copy of the warranty card and terms of warranty provided by the O.P. to the complainant.
( C) Copy of the reply notice dated 10.2.2013 alongwith the dispatch receipt.
8. We heard from both parties at length and perused the documents available in the case record. On perusal of record we found that purchase of the Television from the O.P.No.1 is admitted by all the parties which are further proved from the copy of the retail invoice bearing TIN NO. 21204900377 dated 29.6.2012 filed by the complainant. The petition of the complainant discloses that the defect in Television started soon after its installation, which is within the period of warranty which is further proved by the copy of the warranty card filed by the complainant. On perusal of the copy of the reply letter dated 14.2.2013 to the legal notice of the complainant, we found that the O.Ps have admitted the defect in the said Television and also admitted depute of his engineer of Sony authorized Service Centre to inspect the said television in question. So admitted fact need not be required to prove again.
9. The stand taken by the O.P. he sent the Engineer of the Company who suggested the complainant to replace the LCD panel with a new panel free of cost by the O.P but the complainant refused them can not be believable as the Opposite Parties have not proved this with documentary or oral evidence before the Forum. It is the responsibility of the O.Ps to give after sales service to the customer if defect occurred within the warranty period but in the instant case the complainant purchased the T.V. with some hope and aspirations to give his sister a beautiful gift in her marriage from the side of the brother which is not fulfilled and the complainant suffered from the transaction to a considerable high amounts frustrating the whole purpose of purchase. After few days of its purchase, if there is any defect to be started in the television how the people would have faith on the said company. So the O.Ps should have maintained the standard of quality while selling their product. Since the complainant has proved that the defect was found during warranty period and the complainant approached the O.Ps within the warranty period intimating them the defect in the said television and the Opposite Parties did not care to the customer complaint, we, therefore infer gross negligence and deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps to the customer/complainant. Although the O.Ps filed so many decision of the Hon’ble courts to support their case but that citations not applicable to the instant case. In the light of aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, we allowed the case of the complainant against the O.Ps.
In the result the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to compensate the complainant either with a new television of same model and type with similar description or to refund the original purchase price of the television set i.e. Rs. 15,900/-(Rupees fifteen thousand nine hundred) only to the complainant along with a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only towards litigation cost within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize same U/S 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is directed to return the defective television to the O.P.No.1 at the time of receiving the new set or monetary compensation. Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order is pronounced in the Forum today on 26th April 2016.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
