ORDER
Per Rakesh Kapoor , President
The complainant had purchased an LCD TV from OP1 vide invoice dated
14.4.2010 for a sum of Rs. 1,83,000/-.  It is alleged by the
complainant that immediately after the installation of the TV he had
noticed bad quality / defect in picture and had complained to the Ops
.  It is alleged that an engineer of the OP had visited the
complainant and had attended upon the TV. A sum of Rs. 5000/- was
charged and the TV was received back after removal of the defect.
However after a few days, the same problem again occurred. The TV was
again carried to the workshop and a sum of Rs. 5,500/- was
charged.Even though the TV was under warranty .  It is alleged by the
complainant that since the TV was a defective one and had a
manufacturing defect, the Ops had  promisedto replace the same but had
 backed out of its promise.  Since, the TV again did not work properly
, a complaint was again made to the Ops who on inspection firstly
demanded a sum of Rs 15,000/- as service charges but thereafter
increase the demand to Rs 60,000/-.  The complainant had served a
legal notice dated 19.10.2012 on the Ops but to no result.  He ,
therefore, approached this forum with a prayer to direct the OP to
replace the LCD or to refund its cost besides compensating the
complainant for physical and mental harassment and for the cost of
litigation.
The OPs have contested the complaint . A written statement has been
filed by OP2 wherein several preliminary objections have been taken
.It has been claimed that the complaint is false and frivolous and is
liable to be dismissed. The defence of OP2 is contained in Paras 5 to
11  which have been reproduced as under:
5. It is submitted that from the above stated terms of the warranty it
is clear that the Opposite Party no.2 is liable to provide free of
cost repair on its products only during the warranty period, that too
in cases when the product is proved to be defective due to improper
material or workmanship and not when the defect has arisen due to an
external cause which is beyond the control of the Opposite Party no.2.
It is further submitted that once the warranty of a particular gets
expired, then in such a case the necessary repair activity is carried
out on chargeable basis after the same is approved by the customer. It
is further submitted that Opposite Party no.2 provides only warranty
on its products and not guarantee so the question of replacing the
product with the new one and the refund of the entire amount of the
same does not arise.
6. That the Opposite Party no.2 received the service request for the
LCD at the Customer Care Centre on 08/11/2011 with nature of complaint
“Lining problem”. Thereafter, the service engineer was deputed at the
Complainant’s place and the same carried out the necessary service by
just doing picture settings by remote and upon further inspection the
product was found to be working fine and within its specifications
which was also demonstrated to the Complainant.
7. It is submitted that the first complaint was made after the expiry
of the one year warranty under which the LCD was covered and after one
year and seven months from the date of the purchase of the LCD which
clearly proves that the LCD has worked properly for the aforesaid
period without any sort of defect.
8. It is submitted that the Opposite Party no.2 received another
service request for the LCD at the Customer Care Centre on 01 /
12/2011 with nature of complaint “Colour Mix’. Thereafter, the service
engineer was deputed at the Complainant’s place and upon inspection
the engineer found that Main board needs to be replaced and further
fault if any can be diagnosed upon replacement of the same. Therefore,
the initial repair estimate of Rs.8,286/- was given to the Complainant
but same was disapproved and due to this reason the job was closed and
the service job sheet dated 01.12.2011 got cancelled.
9. It is submitted that after cancelling the aforesaid service job
sheet another complaint was made after a gap of almost 10 months i.e.
on 03.09.20 12 with the nature of complaint “Red Led Blinking-6
Times”. Thereafter the service engineer was deputed for the inspection
of the LCD and upon inspection it was observed that product needs to
be picked up in workshop for thorough inspection so that proper repair
estimate can be conveyed.
10. It is submitted that the LCD was received at Sony Service Centre,
Mathura Road on 18/09/20 12 and upon inspection of the product,
engineer found that LCD panel and GE2B unit I board needs to be
replaced and further fault if any can be
diagnosed upon replacement of the same. Therefore, the initial repair estimate
of Rs.49, 467/-was informed to the Complainant but same was
disapproved by him and due the
aforesaid reason the unserviced LCD was delivered back.
11. That when any defect is found in the product the necessary repair
activity is carried out in order to rectify the same and in such a
case only the service job sheet is prepared. It is submitted that if
the product is found to be working fine within its specifications then
no service job sheet is required to be prepared and if the customer
does not allows for the necessary rectification, then in such case
also the service job sheet is not prepared and the same has happened
in the instant case.

OP2 has contested the complaints on merits and has prayed that the
same be dismissed.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The complainant has placed on record an invoice dated 14.4.2010
showing the purchase of the LCD TV from OP1.  He has also placed on
record a copy of theTax invoice dated 20.9.012 and a copy of the legal
notice dated 19.10.2012 which he had served upon the Ops.    The
original reply received to this notice has also been annexed with the
complainant. OP2 on the other hand has placed on record a copy of the
warranty card with the terms and conditions under which the product
was sold to the complainant.   On behalf of OP2 an affidavit has been
filed by Ms. Meena Bose ,its authorized representative.   She has
deposed that after the purchase of the TV. The OPshad received the
first complaint on 8.11.2011 regarding a lining problem.   She has
deposed that a service engineer had inspected the TV and had carried
out necessary service by doing picture settings by remote.  The
service engineer on further inspection had found that the product was
working fine and within its specification. This was demonstrated to
the complainant as well she has also deposed that even though the
first complaint was made after the expiry of one year warranty  and
even though a period of one year and 7 months had elapsed from the
date of its purchase,  the TV was found to be working properly without
any defect. She has further deposed that another service request was
received by the Customer Care Centre on 1-12-2011.She has deposed that
the service engineer  on inspection had found that the main board
required replacement at an initial repair cost of Rs. 8286/- which
however was not approved by the complainant.  She has also deposed
that after about 10 months of the closure of the above complainant ,
on 3.09.2012 another complaint was received regarding Red LED blinking
6 times .    She has deposed that the LCD was received at the service
center on 18.9.2012 and on inspection it was found that the LCD panel
and GE 2 B Unit board required replacement at an initial repair cost
of Rs. 8286/- which was not again approved by the complainant.  She
has denied any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
The complainant has not been able to refute the aforesaid deposition.
The complainant had purchasd the TV on 14.4.2010.  The TV was
warranteed for a period of one year i.e. upto 13.4.2011.  No complaint
was filed by the complainant within one year of the purchase of the
TV. Infact, the first complaint was filed on 8.11.2011 i.e. after
about 1 year and seven months of the purchase. The second complaint
was filed on 1.12.2011 and the third complaint was filed on 3.9.2012.
All the complaints with respect to the defect in the TV were filed by
the complainant beyond the period of warranty.Under the warranty
clause, the Ops were bound to give due  service and repair the TV
within the period of warranty of one year. Beyond the period of one
year there was no obligation on the part of the OP to give service /
replacement of parts free of charge.  Therefore, if the OP had raised
bills for the repairs / replacement of parts  beyond the period of
warranty, they were entitled to do so.  We, therefore, hold that no
case of deficiency in service  has been made out in the present case.
The complaint is without merits and is here by dismissed.


Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File
be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................