Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/754

GURVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ACE ELECTRONIC SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST DISTRICT, JANAKPURI,NEW DELHI

 

CC No.   754 /2016

In re:-

Gurvinder Singh, Advocate

S/o Sh. Bhupinder Singh

House no-12,

East Avenue Road,

Punjabi Bagh

New Delhi-110026

                                                                           ………..Complainant

VERSUS

1. ACE Electronic Services,

J-3/7, Ground Floor,

Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi-110027

 

2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Directors

A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044Opposite Parties

Coram:                                                                             

1. SONICA MEHROTRA (PRESIDENT)
2. RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)
3. ANIL KOUSHAL (MEMBER)

Date of Institution: 21.11.2016

Judgement reserved on: 11.05.2022

                                                                                                                                                                   Date of Decision: 30.05.2022

 

Order by – RICHA JINDAL (Member)

ORDER

1. That the complainant has filed the present complaint. Brief facts presented before the Commission are as follows:-

1. Opposite Party No. 1 is the authorized service centerfor the products manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2 which is one of the largest manufacturers of electronics and accessories including LED TVs. The Complainant is a customer of the Opposite Parties by virtue of having purchased Sony Bravia LED TV Model No. KDL-32EX420 IN5 Serial No 2037065 manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The Complainant had purchased the TV manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 2 Company for consideration of Rs. 40.964/- on 06.05.2012 purchase invoice, hence, the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. It is stated that right from the first year of the purchase of the TV, the Complainant faced several problems with the screen of the TV and sometimes the screen of the TV got blurred or there was a color line appearing on the middle of the screen while TV is switched on.
4. When Complainant complained to the Opposite Party No. 2 about the above problems faced in the TV, the customer care of the Opposite Party No. 2 always assured that the said problems do occur and further stated that Complainant should ignore as the said problems are temporary and will disappear.
5. However the Complainant was shocked on 22.06.2013 when the screen of the TV suddenly got blacked out and there was no Video/display on the TV, therefore immediately the Complainant lodged the complaint with the customer care of the Opposite Party No. 2, who accordingly sent the technician from the authorized service center of the Opposite Party No. 2 on 23.06.2013 to attend the complaint of the TV and told the Complainant that there is a manufacturing problem in this model of the TV with respect to the display Panel and it requires replacement and it would cost the Complainant Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).
6. Initially, the Complainant was surprised that in the very first year of the purchase of the TV, the Complainant has faced several problems in the TV despite that it is manufactured by a reputed international Japanese brand and was perplexed that how such costly TV is having a manufacturing defect, and when Complainant refused to pay a single penny and demanded free service/repair the technician of the Opposite Party No. 2 refused to repair the same free of cost. That since Complainant had no other option but to get the TV repaired and accordingly the Opposite Party No. 2 charged Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the Complainant on 24.06.2013.
7. After the above-said repair of the display of the TV, the Complainant again started facing similar problems in the display of the TV in January 2014, as colour line again started appearing in the middle of the TV screen, and finally on 13.11.2016, the TV got blacked out and there was no picture in the TV and only sound can be heard.
8. Immediately the Complainant called the customer care of the Opposite Party No. 2 and complained about the resurfacing of the blackout screen, on which the technician of the Opposite Party No. 1 visited the house of the Complainant where the TV is installed on 17.11.2016. The said technician of the Opposite Party No. I on inspection of the TV told the Complainant that display Panel of the TV has to be replaced again for which around Rs. 14,000/- plus a Service Charge of Rs. 650/ excluding tax will be charged which is approximately 40% of the present cost of the TV.
9. The Complainant was stunned, when the technician of the Opposite Party No. 1 talked about the estimate of the replacement of the display panel of the TV will cost the Complainant around Rs. 14,000/-, and then Complainant refused to get the TV repaired for any charge and told the Opposite Parties to either repair it or replace the TV free of charge, to which Opposite Parties refused to heed the request of the Complainant, however, the Opposite Party No. 1 charged Rs. 230/- from the Complainant for visiting charges. That the technician of the OP No. I also reminded that said TV model is having manufacturing defect inthe display panel and there are thousands of the customers of the said TV model who have faced similar display panel problems.
10. When the Complainant confirmed from the internet that there are indeed thousands of customers of the said model TV i.e. KDL-32EX420 manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 2 who have complained about the display Panel defect in the said TV model.
11. The TV has been wall mounted and every step possible has been taken by the Complainant to make sure TV is safe and there was no negligence on the part of the Complainant. However, firstly since in four years the display panel has to be changed twice which is nothing but unacceptable, which means that there is a manufacturing defect in the TV manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 2, then the Opposite Parties are bound to replace the TV with a better model to the Complainant and secondly the Complainant has already incurred more than Rs 10,000/- on the TV and now the Complainant in having TV but without display which is nothing but useless product and having no utility whatsoever.
12. From the above it is quite clear that the Opposite Party No. 2 is guilty of deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice with the Complainant causing substantial loss to the Complainant in terms of money and causing mentalagony to the Complainant as there is a manufacturing defect in the TV set as display panel will need to be replaced after every few months costing about Rs 14,000/-,
13. The inhuman manner in which the Opposite Parties have dealt with the Complainant shows how the Opposite Parties treat their customers. The Opposite Party No. 2 is only interested in selling costly electronic items intentionally having manufactured defects just to increase their sales and earn profits by false and misleading representation to customers and is not keen on providing any customer satisfaction thereafter. The Opposites Parties have, from their actions, proved beyond sufficient doubts that Opposite Parties have been guilty of deficiency in service practice in selling defective TV set to the Complainant and for which Complainant is liable to be adequately compensated entirely at the cost and consequences of the Opposite Parties.
14. Given the above, through this complaint, the complaint has prayed that this Forum may be pleased to allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to either replace the TV Model No. KDL-32EX420 of the Complainant with a brand New Latest LED TV having similar features and size manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 2 or refund the cost of TV i.e. Rs. 40,964/- to the Complainant and further direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs. 10,230/- to the Complainant towards the cost of repair of the TV set and visiting charges of the technician paid to the Opposite Parties by the Complainant and, also direct the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainant the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One lacs only) as compensation forthe above-stated harassment, mental agony and loss of self-esteem.

2. After hearing the arguments on admission, court notice was issued to OPs on 24-11-2016 to be returnable on 2/02/2017. but the OPs did not appear, hence proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 2.02.2017. On 24/07/2017 counsel for OPs appeared and stated at bar that ex parte proceedings against OPs are set aside by Hon’ble state Commission vide order dated 18.07.2017and filed joint reply of OP-1 & 2 taking the following defence:

 

1. The Opposite Party No.2 is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at A-18, Mohan Co-operatives Industrial Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi-110044. That Opposite Party No.1 is the Authorized Service Center of Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, the present reply is being filed on behalf of both the Opposite Parties (hereinafter jointly referred to as in short “OP’s”) signed by duly authorized representative code B/Res. Dated 04.07.2011.
2. OPs took preliminary objection that, the Complainant herein  though had purchased one Sony BRAVIA KDL-32EX420 IN5 having serial no.2037065 on 06/05/2012 but from a dealer who was not an authorized dealer of O.P.2.
3. At the outset the present complaint is liable to be dismissed because the LED in question was purchased from a dealer who was not an authorized dealer of O.P.2 and the LED was not marketed by Sony India Pvt Ltd which is a precondition for any product to avail in-warranty services in case of any issue. The complainant purchased the said LED which was not marketed by Sony India Pvt Ltd. The warranty terms clearly say that:

“Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter, "Sony") warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects during the period indicated in the section-"Valid Up to" on the Product Information page. This non-transferable warranty is only for the first end-user on purchase from Sony Authorised Dealer. Sony Service Centres / Authorised Service Centres will repair the product on the terms and conditions”

 

4. After purchasing the LED, the complainant for the very first time approached the service centre on 23/06/2013 raising an issue of No Video/Sound. The complainant approached at a stage when the warranty period was already expired and it was further observed by the service centre that the LED in question was purchased from some unauthorized dealer and the said LED was not marketed by Sony India Pvt Ltd. Therefore, due to the said facts, the warranty stands void as per warranty policy. The only option available with the service centre was chargeable service.
5. The service centre conveyed the charges towards the repair action of the LED to the complainant. The complainant admittedly accepted our warranty of the LED and paid Rs.1070/- for the replacement of the “common mode choke coil” (hereinafter referred to as spare part). After the necessary replacement of the part, the LED in question was delivered back to the complainant.
6. The complainant after enjoying the said LED for almost 3 years and 5 months approached O.P.1 on 18/11/2016 raising an issue of No Audio/Video in the said LED. The O.P.1 without any delay immediately attended to the complainant and inspected the LED. After carrying out the necessary inspection, it was observed that the main board needs to be replaced. Since the said LED was already out of warranty, therefore, the O.P.1 shared an estimated cost of repair. However, the same was rejected by the complainant and LED was delivered back to the complainant.
7. The complainant filed this present complaint on the pretext of a baseless allegation. The warranty with respect to the said LED was already void and over and above the warranty period was also expired long back. In such a scenario, the only possible option available with the O.P.’S was chargeable service. The same was conveyed to the complainant but the complainant rather filed the present complaint despite knowing the fact that the LED in question was out of warranty.

 

8. It is relevant to mention here that the O.P.’S cannot be held liable considering the facts of the case. The LED in question was purchased from an unauthorized dealer or can say the dealers which are not on the list of authorized dealers of Sony India Pvt Ltd moreover, the said LED was not marketed by Sony India Pvt Ltd. In such a scenario the liability straightaway falls on the complainant and not the O.P.’S.
9. It cannot be said that there was a “Deficiency in Service” concerning the subjected LED. When timely action has been taken by the O.P.’S to diagnose the issue about the LED and the Complainant was duly attended by O.P.’S, in such circumstances, the question of deficiency does not arise.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that approaching O.P.’S raising false issue and then getting the LED diagnosed doesn’t mean that the LED is having some defect. In the present case, the Complainant is using the same tool to strengthen his case to gain wrongfully.
11. In the present case the Complainant is alleging deficiency in Service & manufacturing defect. However, it is wrong to allege both for the reason that the issue of the Complainant was dealt with promptly and with full cooperation and upto the Complainant’s satisfaction. Therefore, in view of the said facts “Deficiency in Service cannot be questioned” in these circumstances.
12. No cause of action ever arose in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Parties to file the instant Complaint, but the Complainant to harass the opposite parties has filed the same before the Hon’ble Forum to gain wrongfully from the opposite parties and the same is liable to be dismissed.

 

3. The complainant has filed his rejoinder and evidence by way of an affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint on 29/11/206. The complainant has filed his evidence as CW1/PW1 by way of his affidavit and he has proved the following documents.:
   1. The True Copy of the Service Job Sheet-cum-Bill dated 23.06.2013 is marked as Exhibit CW-1/A.
   2. The True Copy of the Retail Invoice dated 17.11.2016 for Rs. 230/- is marked as Exhibit-CW1/B.
   3. The True Copies of Online Consumer Complaints against Model of TV are marked as Exhibit CW1/C (Colly).

 

4. Thereafter OP No.1 filed an Affidavit by way of evidence on 16/05/2018affirming the facts alleged in the reply/written statement on 29/11/206. The OP has filed his evidence as by way of his affidavit and he has proved the following documents.:
   4. The True Copy of the Board Resolution dated 4.07.2011
   5. The True Copy of the warranty terms.
   6. The True Copy of job sheet dated 23.6.2013

 

5. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for the filing of written arguments on behalf of the complainant.

 

6. The complainant filed his written submission on 9.7.2018, whereas OP filed written arguments on 18.02.2019. Finally, oral arguments were heard on 11-05-2022. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of the complainant.

 

7. The Ld. Counsel for complainant vehemently argued that alleged warranty terms cited by the Opposite Parties do not apply to the Complainant as said warranty terms are an afterthought. It is argued that firstly on 23.06.2013 the OP's charged the Complainant on the ground that one year from the purchase period got expired and not on the false ground of unauthorized dealership or marketing issue as alleged by the OP No. 2. Secondly, the said defect within 1 year of purchase demonstrated that LED had a manufacturing defect to which OP No. 2 is fully liable to answer. It is further argued that had there been a void warranty due to the alleged grounds, the authorized service centre of OP No. 2 would not have given three months warranty on 23.06.2013, as clearly stated on the Service Job Sheet dated 23.06.2013, It is further argued that LED in question was marketed by OP No. 2 is further evident from the fact that an Authorised Service Centre of OP No. 2 repaired the LED on 23.06.2013 and again visited the Complainant on 17.11.2016 for repairs though refused by the Complainant.

 

8. The Ld. Counsel for OP vehemently argued that the item in question suffered from an inherent defect. If the defect occurs or is noticed due to the use of the product then the manufacturer may not be liable after the warranty period butif there exists a manufacturing inherent defect the manufacturer is liable even after the expiry of the warranty period. Reliance is placed on following judgements by OP :-

 

1. Punjab Tractors Ltd vs Vir Pratap = (1997) II CPJ 81 (NC)
2. Sabeena Cycle Emporium Chennakhaada vs Thajes Ravi M.R. Pancha villa vedar Ezkhone P.O. = (1992) I CPJ 97
3. Keshab Ram Mahto vs Hero Honda Motors Ltd and anr. = I (2003) CPJ 244 

 

9. It is alleged by complainant that the TV was purchased in the year 2012. However, there is nothing on record to show proof of purchase. Moreover, the first complaint is raised in 2016 when a major defect was noticed, the complaint of which was made by the complainant before the OP. Electronic items purchased having no defect for four years cannot be treated to have any inherent defect as alleged.  Infact from the conspectus of the case, it is apparent that the TV so purchased gave good service to the complainant for four years no defects having been noticed. Electronic items after 4 years are even otherwise found to have outlived. No one can ensure a lifetime warranty.

 

10. Reliance is placed on Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case title “Ashok Kumar vs M/S Sony India (P) Ltd. & 2 Ors.” In REVISION PETITION NO. 2670 OF 2018decided on 6 August, 2019 held that :=

“It is averred that during the period of warranty, repair or replacement is the sole discretion of the Respondents. The Complainant purchased the TV on 03.09.1998. The warranty expired on 03.09.1999 and the Complainant used the TV for almost 16 years and approached the Opposite Party on 28.04.2014 after the warranty has expired. On an inspection the Respondents found that the product has reached the end of its life and there is difficulty in getting the spare parts. It was averred that the terms of warranty were binding on the parties; no evidence was led by the Complainant in support of his case that an e-mail was addressed to the Complainant on 14.10.2014 requesting him to upgrade his current model to the latest model and enjoy one year warranty on purchase of the new product as his product has reached the end of its life. It is stated that the Complainant is taking undue advantage and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents and they seek dismissal of the Complaint with costs.”

 

11. We have given careful consideration to the matter. We are of the considered view that the liability of OP No.2 being a manufacturer is limited only for the period of warranty.  It is well-settled law, that the liability of the manufacturer is limited only during the pendency of the warranty period whichever is earlier. The replacement of television is neither governed by any law nor under the contract between the parties. Thus, there has been no deficiency on the part of the OPs. when there is no defect found for 3 years there can be no inherent defect.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant failed to give us any ruling of a higher court to the effect that an item having done good service for the five years can sustain an inherent defect.

 

12. Having regard to this we find no deficiency of service on the part of OPs in the complaint made before us. Since the product was beyond the period of warranty and that the Complainant did not produce any expert opinion to prove that the Respondents sold the product with any manufacturing defect. Accordingly the complaint having been found devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

 

13. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation of the Consumer Protection Regulations.

 

14. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

 

(Richa Jindal)         Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)               Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)                         President