NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Shakuntala Rani – Respondent
Revision Petition No.562 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 19/12/2018 in Appeal No.174/2018 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 15.9.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 24) – Revision Petition – Against the Order dt. 19.12.2018 in Appeal passed by State Commission - Distt. Forum held that the allegation of the Petitioners herein that no complaint in respect of any defect in T.V. was made prior to 11.09.2017 was incorrect – Distt. Forum directed Petitioners to replace the T.V. with a new one of the same make/model within 30 days, failing which Petitioners would pay Rs.1,12,400/-, Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation – Appeal filed by Petitioners before the State Commission dismissed – Hence, the Revision Petition – This commission held that fora below believed affidavit of evidence of the Complainant, held that there was defect in T.V. in respect of sound, picture and camera from very beginning, which could not be cured - Deficiency in service has been proved – Fora relying upon invoice held that price of T.V. was Rs.1,12,400/- - Complainant, old lady, suffering with defects in T.V. from very beginning - When Petitioners failed to do satisfactory repairs, then the complaint was filed - Award of compensation of Rs.30,000/- not excessive - Impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. (Paras 2, 5 & 6)
Result: Revision has no merit, dismissed.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Advocate for the petitioners and Smt. Shakuntala Rani (the respondent) in person.
2. This revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 19.12.2018, passed in Appeal No. 174 of 2018 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 09.05.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 733 of 2017), where by the complaint has been allowed and the appeal has been dismissed.
3. Smt. Shakuntala Rani (the respondent) filed Consumer Complaint No. 733 of 2017 on 18.10.2017 for directing the petitioners/opposite parties to replace the T.V. of same model or to refund Rs.1,12,400/- along with interest @ of 12% per annum, from the date of purchase of T.V., Rs.2,30,000/- as compensation for pain and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation. It has been stated that the complainant had purchased Sony Bravia KDL-55W800D, having Serial No. 8506510, LED T.V. Set of 55" (for short T.V.) from Modern Sales (opposite Party-1) for Rs.1,12,400/-, on 20.10.2016, on which, one year warrantee was given. From very beginning, various defects i.e. (i) Sound Problem- Creaking noise, (ii) Non-Functioning Camera, (iii) Non-Functioning of Voice Search system and (iv) Bad Picture Quality, were detected. The complainant called Customer Care Centre in December, 2016 and lodged her complaint, in respect of the aforesaid defects in T.V. Then some Engineer of Sony Company came and tried to cure the defects but of no result. Second complaint was made in March, 2017, then again some Engineer of Sony Company came and tried to cure the defects but of no result. Thereafter, the complainant was making complaints to the Service Centre and the Dealer but they began to avoid the complaints. The complainant then gave a legal notice to the opposite parties on 03.05.2017. Then again some Engineer of Sony Company came and tried to cure the defects but the problems in T.V. were not mended. The complainant again called Customer Care Centre on 05.09.2017, then some Engineer of Sony Company attended the complaint on 07.09.2017 and tried to cure the defects but of no result. The complainant then gave second legal notice to the opposite parties on 21.09.2017 and requested to replace the T.V. with a new T.V. of the same model. The complainant again called Customer Care Centre on 14.10.2017, then some Engineer of Sony Company attended the complaint and tried to cure the defects but the defects were not mended. The opposite party were giving vague excuses and vesting time by checking and repairing. The T.V. had manufacturing defects, from very beginning.
4. On notice of the complaint, the opposite parties filed their joint written reply. In which they admitted purchase of T.V. on 20.10.2016. However, according to them price of Rs.1,02,600/- was paid. According to them, for the first time, a complaint was made on 11.09.2017, pointing out defects in Camera & Microphone. This complaint was within warrantee period, therefore, after checking, the Camera was replaced and Microphone was repaired, free of cost. The complainant was fully satisfied with the repairs at that time. Prior to 11.09.2017, the complainant never made any complaint either to the dealer or to the Service Centre in respect of any defect. The allegation that she was harassed, was incorrect. The notice dated 03.05.2017 was replied on 05.07.2017, advising the complainant to get her T.V. examined at any nearby Service Centre. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. At the time of purchase of T.V., one year warrantee was given, under which, the opposite parties were liable to repair any defect free of cost. After expiry of about 11 months of purchase, now notice for replacing the T.V. with a new one was given which was not a term of warrantee. No expert evidence has been filed to show that the T.V. was sufferin
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.