Bajaj Electronics, Sony fined Rs 20K, asked to replace TV

HYDERABAD: Bajaj Electronics, a unit of Electronic Mart India Limited and Sony India Pvt Ltd, was ordered to pay Rs 20,000 and replace a damaged TV free of cost for a resident of Kukatpally here. The Telangana State Consumer Redressal Commission has ordered the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 each towards costs of litigation within 45 days from the date of receipt.

The complainant, Vijay Sekhar had purchased a Sony OLED 55 ABF Wireless TV, with one-year warranty for Rs 2,19,991 in monthly installments. According to the complainant, the TV had stopped working from the second day of installation. The complainant also said that he had informed the technician and reported the issue to the authorities concerned multiple times but there was no proper response or rectification of the issue. Vijay Shekar then formally lodged a complaint and sued the opposition parties for the inconvenience caused by them.

The first and second opposition parties (Bajaj electronics & Electronic mart India) claimed that their role was solely limited to sale-purchase transactions. They requested the court to dismiss the complaint as they were not liable for any alleged damage or manufacturing defect. They also defended themselves stating that goods once sold were not taken back or exchanged under any circumstances and the articles sold were guaranteed by manufacturers, as mentioned in the invoice provided.

The third opposition party (Sony India) denied any allegations and contended that the external or internal damage to the TV Panel was due to the complainant's negligence. They also said that the warranty would stand null and void and as a goodwill gesture, offered to replace the TV panel for a revised estimate of Rs 70,055. They also stated that they were not responsible for the external damage and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

The court, after hearing the proceedings, passed the verdict to reasonably compensate for the loss and mental agony of the complainant. The court found the opposite parties jointly and severally liable and responsible for the loss suffered by the complainant.