Sri Manoj Kumar Ray,aged 59 years,

S/o: Jadunath Ray

Vill/PO: Batol, PS:Dhusuri

Dist:Bhadrak

                                         ……………………Complainant

                     (Vrs.)

1.         Sales Dealer, Jyotshna Sales

Narayan Saho Market Complex

At/PO/PS:Chanabali,

            Dist:Bhadrak

2.         Sri Laxmi Services,

            At: Padhanpada, Bidyut Marg,

            Balasore-756001

3.         Sony India Pvt.Ltd.,

            Regd.Office: A-31, Mohan Co-operative ,

            Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

            New Delhi-110044

4.         Sony India Pvt.Ltd.,

            White House(2nd Floor)

            119, Park Street, Kolkata    

                                           ……………………..Opp.Parties

                    Order No.13 dt.07.07.2015:

                The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased one Sony 22P4028 LED Television from the shop of O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.12,700/- under Retail/Tax Invoice No.341 dt.31.07.2014. It has been stated by the Complainant that after 3 to 4 days of its purchase,  the picture from glass became dark and the TV  set did not function due to machinery problem. The Complainant intimated this fact to O.Ps 1 to 3 but they did not give any reply. Thereafter, the Complainant sent Advocate’s Notice to O.Ps 1 to 3 on 05.09.2014. After receipt of notice the O.P.No.2 visited to the house of Complainant as per the instruction of O.P.No.1. After repeated requests the O.P.N o.1 advised the Complainant to purchase a new TV set. However, on 24th September,2014 the Complainant received a Regd. letter from O.P.No.4 who offered to exchange the TV set with any Sony Bravia TV set at 75% of MRP( 25% discount on MRP of any model). According to Complainant  for such acts of the O.Ps he sustained  mental agony and financial loss. As such, the Complainant sustained loss amounting to Rs.12,700/-, he suffered litigation charge of Rs.30,000/- and entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- from O.Ps. Hence,  the Complainant filed this case on 21.10.2014 praying  for an appropriate order on facts and circumstances of the case.

            O.P.No.1 filed written version stating therein that the Complainant the Complainant has not come to the Forum in clean hand and mind. Though one LED TV set was purchased by the Complainant bearing model No.22P402B buthe the TV set is with the Complainant till date.  On 17.08.2014 the Complainant came to his shop and told that he had installed the TV set on the floor and some of his family members has poured water over the TV set. When they plugged it by the electric line, then the TV set did not function due to short circuit. Due to pour of water they cleaned with cloth forcibly for which the front side has been pushed back. The Complainant demanded a new TV instead of repairing. Due to such incident the TV set does not come under any warranty. Neither the Complainant produced the damaged TV set before him nor did he arrange to send it to the Company Service Centre. The Engineers of the Company have visited to the house of the Complainant several times to give better service and they have reported that the said TV set has been damaged due to negligence of the Complainant i.e. pouring of water. Due to mishandling the Complainant has damaged the screen which has been pushed back. Till now the Complainant has kept the TV with him. The Complainant knows the matter very well. Hence, the O.P.No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

            O.Ps 3 to 4 in their written version submitted that as per records,  the Complainant had purchased a Sony LED TV bearing model No.KLV-22P402B and Sl.No.8059498 on 31.07.2014. The Company provides limited warranty on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms & conditions of the warranty provided by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. It is clear from the warranty terms that the authorized service centre of the O.P.No.3 is liable to provide free of cost repair on the product only during the warranty period and that too in cases of defect due to improper material or workmanship and not when the defect has arisen due to an external cause. Clause 8 of the warranty terms provides that;

“This warranty shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening, ingress of water, fire or acts of God, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control and/or any damage caused due to tampering of the product by an unauthorized agent”.

In the present case, the Complainant contacted the O.P.NO.2 on 09.09.2014 alleging that the Remote of the LED was not working and that there were spots on the display. The representatives of the authorized Service Centre inspected the LED and found that the LCD panel was broken and the PCB was water logged but the warranty period of the LED had not expired.  Since the PCB was damaged due to ingress of liquid, the warranty had been rendered void. The Complainant was informed of the damage found in the LED and also that the same would not be covered under the terms of warranty. The Complainant was communicated that the repairs of the LED will be carried out on a chargeable basis since the warranty was rendered void. It was also intimated that repairs of the product in such cases where multiple parts are required to be replaced, the cost of repair turns out to be more than the cost of the LED itself. Therefore, as a goodwill gesture, the O.P.No.2 made an offer to the Complainant to exchange the LED with a brand new one at a discount of 25% on the MRP. However, the Complainant refused the said offer and insisted that the LED be repaired free of cost or be replaced with a new one. The Complainant is pursuing the present complaint only with a view to harass the O.Ps and to make wrongful monetary gains there from by attempting to shift the blame of its own carelessness on to the O.P. and therefore an abuse of the process of law and the precious time of the Hon’ble Forum. Though the C.P.Act,1986 is a beneficial legislation, the same cannot be misused to arm twist Companies to heed to the unreasonable demands of the Consumers. In the present case, the Complainant is seeking to shift the burden of its own carelessness and mishandling of the LED on to the O.P. in order to make wrongful gains. The LED in question cannot be repaired under the terms of the warranty and hence prayed dismissal of the complaint.

            We have heard both the sides and perused the documents available on record.  On perusal of Xerox copy of Retail/Tax Invoice No.341 dt.31.07.2014, it is found that the Complainant had purchased one  Sony LED TV bearing model No.KLV-22P402B and Sl.No.8059498  from the shop of O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.12,700/-. Except copy of legal notice dt.5.9.2014, the Complainant has not filed any other document showing that he had lodged complaint with the O.Ps prior to 05.09.2014 alleging defect in the TV set within 3 to 4 days of its purchase. However, it is suffice to say that defect was found in the TV set of the Complainant within one month of its purchase and this fact was brought to the notice of O.Ps as is revealed from the Advocate’s Notice.  It is also true that the defect was found within warranty period of one year. Admittedly, the Complainant has neither produced the damaged TV set before the O.P.No.1 nor has he arranged to send the same to Company Service Centre as yet. On the other hand, the representatives of the authorized Service Centre have visited the house of Complainant and opined that the LCD panel was broken and the PCB was water logged. Admittedly, the O.Ps have not filed in this case the job sheet duly signed by the Complainant to prove their case that  the LCD panel was broken due to mishandling and the PCB was water logged due to negligence of the Complainant. Merely saying that LCD panel was broke and PCB was water logged without any supporting document would not absolve the O.Ps from liability. Even though the representatives of the authorized Service Centre have visited the house of Complainant but they have not done any repair work as per terms & conditions of the warranty. Had the O.Ps repaired the TV set in question as per terms and conditions of the warranty, the Complainant would not have filed this case.  It is observed that the O.Ps have tried to escape their liability on the ground of mishandling and negligence of the Complainant invoking Clause 8 of the warranty terms. Being a reputed Company, Sony India Pvt.Ltd would have exchanged the TV set in question by a new one particularly when the defect was found within one month of its purchase. TV set is kept inside the room in a particular place for entertainment purpose and it is not like mobile hand set to be used inside and outside where there is much possibility water ingression. It is really astonishing how the O.Ps took such a plea that PCB was water logged and LCD panel was broken without any job card or experts’ opinion? So we are constrained to hold that the TV set in question had got inherent manufacturing defect due improper material or workmanship for which the Complainant could not use the TV set completely for a month. Accordingly,  it is ordered: 

                                                                                      O R D E R

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to exchange the defective TV in question by a new one with the same size and model i.e. KLV-22P402B without charging anything within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order through O.P.No.1, failing which they are liable to pay the cost of TV set in question i.e. Rs.12,700/- to the Complainant  with 9% interest from the date of purchase till its realization. Parties to bear their own costs.