KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 580/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 01.07.2020

(Against the Order in C.C. 131/2015 of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Sony India (P) Ltd., Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Madhura Road, New Delhi-110 044.
2. Shahjahan Home Appliances, Mannarkkad Road, Perinthalmanna P.O, Malappuram – 679 322.
3. Sony Authorized Officer, Service Centre, 10/127 D, E Kootharadan Complex, Bypass Road, Munduparambu, Malappuram.

                             (By Adv. R. Chandrapraveen)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Jose George, Vettikkattu House, Poonthanam P.O, Pattikkad via, Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram-679 325.

                             (By Adv. R. Suja Madhav)

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 131/2015 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short).  The respondent is the complainant. The dispute is regarding the defect of the T.V.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 38,000/-, the price of the T.V and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as costs.  Aggrieved by this order the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

2.  Brief facts of the case are as follows:  The complainant had purchased a Sony Television from the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party on 09.12.2009 for Rs. 38,000/-.  On 03.07.2010 an abnormal display was found to the TV and serviceman tried to repair the same, but they failed in their effort.  At last, after a long effort the problem was solved.  On 02.06.2013 the same defect again found and 1^st opposite party directed the complainant to entrust the TV to their authorized service centre at Perinthalmanna and an amount of Rs. 11,374/- was paid as repair charge.  Though it was repaired the problem repeated again and again and the 2^nd opposite party made him believe that they will solve the problem, and as instructed by them an amount of Rs. 11,361/- was paid by the complainant by way of DD to the 2^nd opposite party.  Thereafter 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the spare parts are not available and the complainant enquired about the payment of Rs. 11,361/-, and he was told that he had to wait for 7 days to return the said amount since the D.D had been sent to 3^rd opposite party.  Thereafter they suggested an offer that if the complainant is purchasing a new Sony Television, they will provide a discount of 5% towards maximum retail price and for that he has to return the damaged one.  Since the complainant was not amenable to that he demanded the money which was already paid by him.  After repeated demand the complainant was directed to come and collect the amount from the office of the 2^nd opposite party.  Thus the complainant collected the amount and at that time also the 2^nd opposite party offered 7% discount for the television.  They were not ready to repair the TV and they compelled the complainant to purchase a new one.  The complainant had purchased the above branded TV by seeing the attractive and misleading advertisements.  But the acts and omission on the part of the opposite parties caused this complaint. 

3.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 set ex-parte.  3^rd opposite party filed version. The purchase of the TV was admitted.  It was holding one year warranty.  After enjoying the TV for a period of 4 years the complainant approached the opposite party for repairing the same.  Since it was already in out of warranty, an amount of Rs. 11,379/- was received by them and it was repaired.  Second time also the complainant entrusted the TV for repair.  Since it was out of its warranty an estimate was provided by the opposite party and the complainant was not ready to approve the same.  As a goodwill gesture, the opposite party offered the complainant to exchange the TV with another model by paying 75% of the actual price i.e; at a discount of 25% on M.R.P.  The complainant refused the offer.  As it is an electronic goods the natural fail may happen in the product in the course of time and this is the reason that the opposite party offered one year warranty and beyond the period, the service becomes chargeable.  So no deficiency in service committed by opposite party and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost. 

4.  In this case the complainant has filed chief affidavit and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side.  Ext. A1 is the warranty card.  Ext. A2 is the bill issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 09.12.2009 for Rs. 38,000/-.  Ext. A3 is the proforma invoice.  Ext. A4 is the job sheet dated 02.02.2015.  Ext. A5 is the copy of the D.D issued by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party by way of repairing charge.  3^rd opposite party also filed chief affidavit and produced the warranty card.  The 3^rd opposite party admitted the documents produced by the complainant.  According to them the complainant had enjoyed the T.V for 4 years and as it is out of warranty repair charge was received from the complainant. 

5.  The complainant stated that within six months of purchase of the TV, there were some defects.  But the complainant had failed to prove that contention.  The District Forum found that the charging of Rs. 11,361/- as repairing charge by the opposite parties from the complainant itself is their deficiency in service. 

6.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 38,000/- as the price of the T.V set and also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant.  Against this order the opposite parties have filed this appeal. 

7.  We heard both sides and verified the entire records.  There was no dispute regarding Exts. A1 and A2.  As per Ext. A2 the date of purchase is 09.12.2009.  As per Ext. A1 the service warranty provides upto 21.11.2010.  As per Ext. A3 the first repair was done on 26.06.2013, i.e; out of warranty period.  Thereafter the complainant used the T.V till 02.02.2015 without any defects, ie; for more than 2 years.  Ext.  A4 shows that the complainant approached the opposite parties for repairing the T.V. on 02.02.2015 and they charged Rs. 11,361/- from the complainant.  But the complainant was not satisfied with the work of the opposite parties and demanded for refund of the repairing charge which he had paid.  The opposite parties refunded the amount to the complainant.  The opposite parties advised the complainant to purchase a new Sony television, by offering 25% discount towards maximum retail price.   But the complainant was not amenable for that offer. 

8.  In this case the complainant has not proved the manufacturing defect of the T.V.  The complainant has been using the T.V without any problem for more than 4 years.  The defects occurred after the warranty period hence the repair will be only on payment basis.  Since the complainant has been using the T.V without any problem for more than 4 years, he is not entitled to get the total price of the T.V.  The District Forum ought to have deducted the depreciation of the T.V.  Moreover the defects were found only after the warranty period.  There is no evidence before us to prove that the T.V set is repairable or not.

9.  In these circumstances, we decide to modify the order of the District Forum. 

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the District Forum, Malappuram in C.C. No. 131/2015 is modified as follows:  The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent/complainant.  The respondent/complainant is permitted to obtain release of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of institution of the appeal before this Commission, on proper application.  The appellants/opposite parties can withdraw the balance amount, on proper application.  No order of costs.

T.S.P. MOOSATH    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb