IMPORTANT POINT
Electronic Goods – Defect in Television set/improper functioning – No cogent evidence to prove inherent defect – No deficiency in service.

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President.—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 08 of 2015, styled as Sh. Ajay Tiwari Vs. Managing Director, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the appellant / opposite party No. 1 is a company engaged in the business of marketing and trading of world class electronic devices under the brand name “Sony”. Respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 2 is the authorised dealer of the appellant – company. The respondent No. 1 / complainant had purchased a Sony LED TV bearing model No.KDL-46W950A (S.No.4300261) on 22.6.2013 from respondent No.2, after a detailed physical inspection and demonstration of the features, functions and applications by the retailer and only after understanding all the features of the television set, the respondent No. 1 / complainant had agreed to pay the price of the television set amounting to Rs. 1,32,900/-. After purchase of the television set, the complainant made complaint with respondent No. 2 regarding improper functioning of the television set, on which, the mechanic of Fairdeal Agencies, Sony Authorised Service Centre, Haldwani visited the house of the complainant and inspected the television set and always left after giving the assurance that next time, the television set would be set right, but the needful was not done. Being compelled, the complainant submitted the television set with respondent No. 2 on 05.06.2014, which has not yet been returned to the complainant in working condition. Thus, there has been deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and respondent No. 2, who were opposite parties before the District Commission. The complainant has also sent a registered legal notice to the appellant and respondent No. 2 on 26.07.2014, but nothing was done by them. Therefore, the consumer complaint was submitted by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. The appellant and respondent No. 2 (opposite parties to the consumer complaint) filed joint written statement before the District Commission, stating that there was no defect in the LED TV sold to the complainant. The same was of good quality and the warranty of the television set was for a period of one year. For the first time, the complainant brought the television set to the authorised service centre of the appellant on 05.06.2014, which was inspected by the mechanic and the panel was found broken, for which the company is not responsible, hence the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned District Commission, after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the evidence available on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2019, thereby directing the appellant and respondent No. 2, jointly or severally, to install a new LED of the same model and same features in place of the LED in question, at the residence of the complainant within a period of one month or in the alternative, to pay an amount of Rs. 1,32,900/- to respondent No. 1 / complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 20.01.2015 till actual payment. The District Commission has also awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards mental & physical agony and litigation charges of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1 / complainant.

5. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the present appeal has been filed by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission) as an appellant, stating that the impugned judgment and order is completely arbitrary and unreasoned and the complainant is