IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 737 of 2023 [Against the order passed in C.C. No. 135 of 2022 dated 30.11.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Salem].

Friday, the 31^st day of January 2025

1. Sony India Private Limited Rep. by its Managing Director A-31 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, Delhi-110 044.

2. The Manager Sharon Electronics No.71, 315-C, Sai Sundaram Plaza Brindhavan Main Road Salem - 636 004. .. Appellants/

Opposite parties - Vs –

Dr. K. Hari Prasad No.17-1-112, Sakthi Theatre Road Nehru Nagar, Metur RS, Salem – 636 402 Rep. by Power Agent Kandasamy ..Respondent/

Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/

Opposite Parties : M/s. R.B. Associates For Respondent/ Complainant : Party-in-person This appeal came up for final hearing on 03.07.2024, and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and the power Agent of the complainant-in-person and on perusing the material available on records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by the opposite parties 1&2, as against the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Salem, in C.C. No.135 of 2022, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein, in part.

2. The Appellants 1 & 2 herein are the Opposite Parties 1 &

2 and the Respondent is the Complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the District Commission. 3. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he is an Assistant Civil Surgeon working under Government of Tamil Nadu. The complainant bought a Sony LED TV, 55” KD 55”x8500C under Sl.No.4503976, for a sum of Rs.1,61,405/- through Reliance Retail Limited, Salem, vide Invoice No. CD/DR 7188 dated 27.03.2016 and Delivery Note No.7003024966 dated 27.03.2016. The said TV stopped working within a period of 7 months from the date of purchase. When the Television was taken to the local authorized Sony service centre, it was found that the defect is with the display panel board. On 10.11.2016 the Television was delivered back to the complainant stating that the defective display panel board has been replaced without any charges, since the television set was within the warranty period. Again there was malfunctioning in the Television on 17.07.2020 and so the Television was handed over to the service centre at Salem, the 2^nd opposite party herein, on 21.07.2020 under job card No.878975. The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the display panel board has to be replaced. But this time, the 2^nd opposite party demanded the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.28,726/- towards the cost of the panel board. When the complainant sought for free replacement since it was the very same spare part said to have been replaced previously on 10.11.2016, it was not accepted by the 2^nd opposite party. According to the complainant, during the previous service in November 2016, the 2^nd opposite party had replaced the defective original panel board with a repaired/ reconditioned panel board which is the cause for malfunctioning of the television again. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice on 09.06.2022 to both the opposite parties. On receipt of the legal notice, two technicians from Sony Service centre, Salem visited the residence of the complainant on 22.06.2022, examined the Television for about 30 minutes and informed that there is some trace of oil inside the Television, which would happen normally if the Television had been kept idle for a very long time. The 2^nd opposite party sent a reply letter dated 27.06.2022 to the notice of the complainant, denying the allegations of the complainant stating that based on the inspection of their technicians, it is observed that the display panel needs