BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 8th February 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C. No.23/2013
(Admitted on 16.01.2013)
Mr. Yusuff Kallugundi,
S/o. P.A. Moideen,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at Kallugundi House,
Sampaje Village,
Sullia Taluk, D.K. District
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri CNG)
VERSUS
1. The Manager,
M/s Harsha Puttur,
Preethi Arcade, Main Road,
Darbe, Puttur, D.K. District.
2. The Manager,
Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.239, Mysore Road,
Pantrapalya,
Bangalore 560039.
3. The Manager,
Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office: A.31,
Mohan Co operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi 110044.
….........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Smt. HM)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party & No.2 No.3: Sri BMD)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR:
- 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties claiming certain reliefs to replace Sony product Bravia Blue ray Home Theatre and other components, to repay the purchased amount total of Rs.74,854/ with 15% interest p.a., to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/ and to pay Rs.10,000/ towards cost of this proceedings.
2. In support of the above complaint Mr. Yusuff Kallugundi filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents not marked. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Yogish K (RW1) Store Manager, Harsha and also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R4 as detailed in the annexure here below. Mrs. Meena Bose (RW2) Authorized representative of the OP No.2 and No.3 i.e. Sony India Pvt Ltd also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on her.
The brief facts of the case are as under
We have perused the complaint and the version of the parties and understood the dispute as, the complainant purchased a home theatre from the opposite party and the LED display not working properly. On complaint the opposite party not attended and not replaced the home theatre and committed deficiency in service and hence this complaint. The opposite party contended that there is problem in the BA board (Board Assembly) and the opposite party is ready to replace the BA board but the complainant is refusing to replace the board but demanding the replacement of the whole home theatre. The opposite party also submits that as per terms of sale opposite party has given warranty of one year but not guarantee and as per terms opposite party is liable to repair only but not refund or replace of the whole home theatre and hence there is no deficiency in service from their part. These are being the facts of dispute in resolving it we consider the following
POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION
We have considered the evidence of the parties and the documents produced by the parties. The admitted facts are, The purchase of the home theatre by the complainant from the opposite party no 1and the home theatre is manufactured by the opposite party no 2 & 3 company, and the defect in the LED of the home theatre. It is denied that the opposite party is bound to replace the whole units of the home theatre when it becomes defective and denies that the opposite party is not serving the complainant and also denies the deficiency in service from their part. On considering the admissions and the denials we consider the following points to decide in resolving this dispute.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act 1986?
- Whether the complainant proves that the opposite party committed deficiency in service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
- What order?
We have examined the evidences lead and considered the documents produced by the rivals. Heard the submissions the parties and answered the above points as under:
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- In the affirmative in part.
- As per delivered order.
REASON
POINT NO 1: The complainant had produced the tax invoice No 3CR 01801 dated 14.07.2012 which establishes the purchase of the home theatre by the complainant and there formed the relation of consumer and the service provider between the complainant and the opposite party 1 the seller and the opposite party no 2 & 3 the manufacturer of the product. The opposite party not denied the complainant as consumer and hence we answered the point no 1 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 2: The contention the complainant raised is the opposite party not served and neither replaced the defective home theatre nor refunded the value of the home theatre amounting to ₹ 74845/. The complainant states in Para 4 of the complaint that at the time of installation there was defect on display of movies and the product completely scraped, thereafter within two months the audio and video not worked. The product handed over to the opposite party no 1 on 05.09.2012. The opposite party no 1 taken back the product from the authorized center M/S Roshan Electronics Mysore after repair and on installation, audio and video not worked. Hence the complainant alleges the manufacturing defect in the product and claims replacement on the base of guarantee and the warranty issued by the opposite party. So it is clear the complainant is claiming under the guarantee and warranty issued by the Opposite parties. The only point to be decided is, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed under the terms and conditions of the warranty issued by the opposite parties.
2. We have closely inspected the terms and conditions in the warranty card produced by the complainant. in the first para it mentioned as “Sony India Pvt Ltd warranties the products to be free from manufacturing defect during the period indicated in the section ‘Valid up to’ on product intimation page” (it is admittedly one year).... it continues to state that the “sony service center/authorized service centers will repair the product on the terms and conditions below”. The applicable condition in this case is the point no 10 which reads “Sony reserves the right to replace the defective part with an equivalent and/or reconditioned part”
3. As per the warranty the complainant had agreed for the terms of replacing the parts if there is defect and repair to be done. What is said in the warranty the same has been pleaded by the opposite party and states that the problem is with the BA board of the LED monitor and if it is replaced the home theatre will work properly and the opposite party is ready to replace the BA board. But the complainant is not agreeing to it and asking for the replacement of the home theatre. The EX R 4 is the letter written by the opposite party to the complainant shows that the opposite party is ready to replace the BA board and repair the product but refused the replacement of the whole home theatre.
4. We also under stood from the tax invoice produced that the home theatre consists of different units as LED MONITOR, HOME THEATRE BDV 290, AND SONY DVD PLAYER and PENDRIVE totally valued ₹ 74845/ including the delivery charges. We do not see justification is asking for the refund of whole amount paid or the whole units replacement for just finding defect in one unit i.e. LED. The opposite party states they are ready to serve and cure the defect and it is as per warranty also the opposite party is expected to repair the product but not replacement or refund. The also stated that the first time complainant is related to audio not working but on inspection it was found there is shorting wire which was corrected immediately. So in our opinion the complainant has not proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and we are of the view that the opposite party is right in his contention and he is only liable to repair the defect by replacement of the non working part only. Hence we answered the point no 2 in the negative.
POINT NO 3: The relief prayed by the complainant is surprisingly the as per prayer a) replace the whole unit of home theatre, and also in point no b) repay the purchased amount of ₹ 74845/ which is unheard of by us. Any how we have not hold the opposite party for deficiency in service and the point does not arise. The opposite party submitted they are ready to replace the BA board and correct the defect in the home theatre. As such the complainant is entitled for the replacement of the BA board on the opposite party cost and since the BA board is an important part in the LED we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for one year warranty for the home theatre from the date of replacement of the BA board, and a fresh warranty card to be issued. Since we have not hold the opposite party for the deficiency in service the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and the cost. Hence the point no 3 answered partly affirmative.
POINT NO 4: In the light of the above discussion and the adjudication of points we deliver the following
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties jointly and severally shall replace the BA board of the LED monitor on their cost and extend new warranty of one year from the date of replacement of the BA board for the home theatre for whole unit within 30 days from the date of order copy received.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly typed by member, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 8th February 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Yusuff Kallugundi
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Nil
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Mr. Yogish K, Store Manager, Harsha
RW2 Mrs. Meena Bose (RW2) Authorized representative of the OP No.2 and No.3 i.e. Sony India Pvt Ltd
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1:The Board Resolution dated 04.07.2011
Ex.R2: Warranty Card
Ex.R3: Copy of the Service Job sheet dated 06.09.2012 and 07.09.2012
Ex.R4: Copies of the letters dated 17.12.2012 and 09.01.2013
Dated: 08.02.2017 MEMBER
