BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
Consumer Case NO-03/2019
Present- Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President,
Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, aged about 50 years,
S/O- Madanlal Agrawal,
Occupation-Business,
At-Badabazar (Near Durga Mandap),
P.O/P.S-Khetrajpur, Dist-Sambalpur. ......Complainant.
Vrs.
1. The Managing Director,
SONY India PVt. Ltd.,
Registered Office situated at-A-31,
Mohan Cooperative Industries Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
2. The Proprietor,
M/S Royal Services,
Authorised service Centre of SONY India Pvt. Ltd.,
At-Charbati Chowk,P.O/P.S-Dhanupali,
Dist-Sambalpur,Odisha.
3. The Proprietor,
Radiant Enterprises,
At-Rama Complex, G.M College Road,
Sambalpur, P.S-Town, P.O/Dist-Sambalpur. ……….……………….Opp. Parties
For the Complainant:-Sri S. Mohanty, Advocate,
For the O.P-1,2&3:None
DATE OF HEARING : 09.12.2020,
DATE OF ORDER : 16.12.2020
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA, PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that on dtd. 03.05.2013, the Complainant has purchased one Sony Bravia LCD Colour
Television (32 inches) of model-KLV-32EX330 having serial no.3352846 from the O.P-3 with exchange of an old TV and paid Rs. 29,900/-in total. The above said TV
set was warranted for one year from the date of purchase. After lapse of nine
....contd on p-2
// p-2 //
months on dtd. 24.02.2014, the Complainant found some defect in the display panel of the said TV Set i.e view of double images with negative pictures. The Complainant brought the, matter to the O.P-2 and lodged an online complain vide complaint no- 13303466 on dtd. 25.03.2014 but the O.p-2 did not respond. The Complainant lodged another Complaint on dtd. 02.04.2014 vide no- 18421479 to the O.P-2 who in response to it attained the Complaint and after inspection replaced the Display Panel and removed the defect. After passing of four years the Complainant noticed the same defect in the TV Set and lodged another complain with the O.P-2. This time the O.P-2 as well as the O.P-1 did not bother to attain the Complaint initially but later the O.P-1 responded to the Complaint and informed about the limited availability of the spare in the present time and offered him to exchange the existing TV set and take a new TV set with 75% payment against the price. But the Complaint became aggrieved on the proposal of the O.P-1 and lodged another complaint on dtd. 25.06.2014 asking him to replace the display panel but in vain. The Complainant now feels that the O.Ps have provided him a sub-standard product and purposefully avoided him to repair the TV and tried to sale a new one which amounts to gross deficiency in service. So the Complainant prays for the reliefs such as return of sale price of the TV (Rs.29,900/-), compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- from the O.Ps.
The O.Ps despite of service of notice did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-1,2&3 as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new SONY Bravia LED TV Set from the O.P-3. The O.P-2 in this case has provided necessary services to the Complainant within the warranty period by replacing the Display Panel free of cost. But when the said TV Set shown the same defect after lapse of four years in 2018, the Complainant here claims that the O.Ps have supplied a sub standard product which is not true at all. If the allegation is true then the TV set would not
have functioned for four years after replacement of the display in the year 2014. After receiving the Complaint from the Complainant the O.P-2 said “the repairs
....contd on p-3
// p-3 //
were not possible because spare parts were not available and the company offered him a discount on a new TV set, but the Complainant rejected the offer and stressed on repairs,” But in our view as the consumer had bought the expensive (or otherwise) item for a certain reasonable life span and saying no service of spares after five years was too short. The Commission also noted that a consumer may not be willing to change the model for the next 12 to 15 years and the company resorting to the practice of discontinuing the spares in short span is as good as forcing the customer to go for new product and new technology. Again on considering the allegation made by the Complainant for supplying him a sub-standard product, it is the settled position of law that in case of manufacturing defect of a product, irrespective of the stipulations contained in the warranty card, it is obligatory on the part of the manufacturer/seller/service centres to replace the defective product with a new defect free product of similar specification. This matter has been well established in the case of M/S. Sony Service Centre vs. Arijit Modak decided on 6 January, 2017 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, WEST BENGAL. So the O.Ps has committed Deficiency in services as well as Unfair Trade Practice to the Complainant. Hence we order as under:-
ORDER
The Petition is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to repair the defective television set to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant and offer additional warranty for a period of one year from the date of successful repairing of the television set. In case the O.Ps fail to repair the television set to the utmost satisfaction of the Complainant, it would be liable to replace the defective television set with a new defect free television set of similar specification having warranty period of one year, else refund the price of the television set to the Complainant. Further the O.Ps are directed compensate the consumer by paying Rs 5,000 for not being able to repair the TV set, Rs 3,000 for mental and physical harassment and Rs 2,000 as cost of litigations. The O.Ps are directed to comply with this order within 30 days of this order.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 16th day of December 2020 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-sd/-(16.12.2020) -sd/-(16.12.2020)
Smt. S.Tripathy Sri. D.K. Mohaptra
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-sd/-(16.12.2020)
Sri. D.K. Mohaptra
PRESIDENT
