Haryana

Ambala

CC/434/2016

Smt Anita Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arvind Electrical & Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Shailender Sharma

31 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 434 of 2016

Date of Institution: 06.12.2016

Date of Decision: 31.07.2017

 

Smt. Anita Ahuja W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, resident of H.N. 74-A, Vijay Nagar, Ambala City

                                                                                         ...................Complainant

VERSUS

1. Arvind Electrical & Electronics, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, through its Manager/ authorised signatory
2. Ambey Electronics Service, DSS-14, 1^st Floor, Sector-1 Urban Estate, Ambala City, (Authorised Service Centre) through its Manager/ authorised signatory
3. FI Info Solutions & Services Pvt. Ltd., Sony Authorised Service Centre, 493-L, Model Town, Karnal, Haryana-132001 (Authorised Service Centre) through its Manager/ authorised signatory
4. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Manager/ authorised signatory

                                                                                ...................Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SHRI D. N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

        SHRI PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:    Sh. Shailender Sharma, Adv. for Complainant.

                  OPs already ex parte.

 

ORDER

PER ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

1.                Smt. Anita Ahuja, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Arvind Electrical & Electronics and others/Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the “OPs”). Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a new LED TV 40 inches, Make “SONY”, (Model No.KLV40R452A, Chassis No.4342168) from OP No.1 on 11.01.2014 vide bill invoice No.4511 (Annexure C-1) for a consideration of Rs.57,000/- including taxes for her personal use. It is pertinent to mention here that at this stage, the LED TV came with one year warranty. The complainant avers that in the month of July 2014, the aforesaid LED TV started giving trouble, i.e. not giving proper picture, screen went partially black; and that soon after noticing these problems she reported the matter to OP No.1 who in turn asked her to visit OP No.2 for removal of aforesaid problems in LED.  OP No.2 after checking the LED told the complainant that this all is due to panel problem and the same was changed being in warranty period by the OP No.2 (Annexure C-3). After paying Rs.5,000/- the complainant got the warranty period extended vide Extended Warranty Card No.40003003 dated 01.01.2015 (Annexure C-2) which covered further period of two years i.e. upto 11.01.2017. But after replacement of the panel as aforesaid, the LED remained in working condition for few days and thereafter again started giving same troubles. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP No.2, who after checking again replaced the panel in the month of March-April 2015. In the month of May 2016, the LED TV again started giving same trouble. Faced with frequent troubles, the complainant asked OP No.1 to replace the aforesaid LED TV with a new one but the OP No.1 totally refused to do the needful. Finding no other option, the complainant registered a complaint with OP No.4 via e-mail on dated 14.06.2016 (Complaint No.J61380844). Vide e-mail correspondence dated 16.06.2016 (Annexure C-6), OP No.4 acknowledged the receiving of complainant’ mail dated 14 June, 2016. Vide e-mail correspondence dated 22.06.2016 (Annexure C-7), OP No.4 acknowledged that upon inspection of the product engineer observed that display panel needs to be replaced for satisfactory working of the product. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP No.4 via e-mail dated 24.06.2016 (Annexure C-8) to replace the complete TV set with a new one as the replacement of panel alone was not proving out to be fruitful. The OP No.4 instead agreed for replacement of only display panel and turned down request for replacement of complete set (Annexure C-9). After this series of correspondence which continued upto 04.08.2016 between the complainant and the OP No.4, the OP No.3 was deputed to look into the matter. The OP No.3 checked the LED TV and prepared a Job Sheet dated 05.09.2016 (Annexure C-4) wherein ASC Comments depicted “Panel Problem” though the complainant alleges that the mechanic of OP No.3 orally told her that the aforesaid LED was a defective piece since the time of its manufacturing.   
2.                After that, the complainant served a legal notice registered AD dated 28.09.2016 upon OPs (Annexure C-13 and 14) to look into the matter and do the needful. The reply to the said notice was given by OP No.4 through its Advocate Shweta Kapoor on dated 03.11.2016 (Annexure C-19).
3.                We have heard ld. Counsel for complainant and have also perused the case file.
4.                It is ample clear that the defects in the product in question i.e. LED TV supplied by OP No.1 and 4 started within the period of warranty (within six months of its purchase). Though the problem in TV as evaluated by OP No.2 and 3 at the behest of OP No.4 was regarding panel and the same was replaced by them multiple times, the problem still persisted in TV. On minute perusal of Sony LED TV Extended Warranty Terms and Conditions (Annexure C-5) wherein it states that Sony may use new and/or reconditioned parts to carry out repairs under warranty; it is not beyond the saying that the panel(s) as replaced by OPs could also suffer from inherent defect. It is misconceived notion that any goods if not found suffering from manufacturing defect cannot be declared a defective goods. The failure of product within six months of its purchase followed by subsequent failure despite repair multiple times smacks nothing short of defective product which ultimately calls for replacement with a new complete set. This very fact was well within the notice of OPs but nevertheless wrongfully avoided by them.
5.                The observations of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ashwani (2008) are quote-worthy and are as under:-

“It was in order to inculcate high standard of quality, purity, potency of goods and nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained that Consumer Protection Act was brought on the Statute Book because rich and mighty traders and manufacturers were exploiting large populace of the developing countries in such a manner that consumers were left high and dry and helpless and hapless persons. Had the United Nations General Assembly not passed Resolution on 9^th April 1985 laying down guidelines for the developing countries to arrest such exploitation effectively, the Consumer Protection Act would have seen light of the day.”

The practice adopted by such rich and mighty manufacturers, by forcing the poor consumer who had already been wronged at their hands to approach the Legal Forum for getting his grievances redressed, deserves to be dealt with heavy hands. Merely because the traders or manufacturers are in sound position and can engage a counsel of standing does not mean that they can add insult to the injury upon the consumer by forcing him to incur expenses by resorting redressal through court or legal judicial authority.

6.                In view of the above discussion and the fact that the abovesaid LED TV started giving troubles within warranty period, we come to the irresistible conclusion that the goods supplied by the OP Nos. 1 and 4 to the Complainant in the instant case is defective, and that they are guilty of deficiency in service for not replacing the same with a new one despite it being well within warranty period at the relevant time. It seems that OP No.4 was more anxious to execute a service contract rather than to see that the product sold and supplied by it works satisfactorily. Thus, the refusal of OP Nos.1 & 4 to honour the genuine request of the complainant to replace the product for it being well within its warranty period and suffering from persistent failure left no other viable option with the complainant and constrained her to knock at the doors of this Legal Forum to seek justice. However, OP Nos. 2 and 3 (Being Authorised Service Centres) have provided service to the complainant as and well called upon and as such are held not guilty of any deficiency in service.
7.                For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves to be partly allowed with cost only against OP Nos.1 & 4 and as such, the OP Nos.1 & 4 are hereby jointly and severally directed to comply with the following direction within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order:-

1. To replace the aforesaid TV with a new TV of similar description and in absence of same model, another model of like monetary value.  If the OPs failed to comply with the stated direction within stipulated period then they will be liable to pay Rs.62,000/- [the price of TV i.e. Rs.57,000/- and consideration for Extended Warranty i.e. Rs.5,000/- alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization; and
2. To pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses.

 

Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced on: 31.07.2017

 

PUSHPENDER KUMAR                ANAMIKA GUPTA                            D.N. ARORA

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

ANAMIKA GUPTA

         MEMBER