D.O.F:08/04/2022
D.O.O:30/10/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.63/2022
Dated this, the 30th day of October 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Kesavan Namboodiri, aged 75 years
S/o P Madhavan Namboodiri
R/at Madhavam House
Monacha, Uppilikai P O
Nileswar via, Hosdurg Taluk
Kasaragod district.
(Adv: K T Prakashan) : Complainant
And
- Managing Director
Sony India
A -18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate
Madhura Road,
New Delhi – 11044.
(Adv: Sudhir Melath)
- National Radio
Electronics Parties
North Kottachery,
(Adv: Sudhir Melath): Opposite Parties
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Sony Bravia TV model KL-43 W 800 D on 10/09/2016 by paying Rs. 63,300/- from National Radio Electronics Kanhangad. The functioning of TV was not smooth with respect to the mother board. He got new mother board by paying Rs. 7,100/-.
The LCD was not working, it was informed to opposite party No.2. They advised replacement, but parts are not available. The opposite party No.2 suggested exchange with another model, it is not agreeable to the complainant. The complainant is required to pay for the part. But not replaced it. The complainant is liable to replace the defective part, for which the complainant is seeking compensation, to allow to returning TV with supply of new TV besides costs.
The opposite party filed written version, countering that the complainant is not a consumer. The opposite party admitted purchase of the TV set from the opposite party No.2. It covers one year warranty. The complaint was received only on 31/01/2020 with a complaint of TV not working properly. The opposite party rleplaced the TV with new one to satisfactions of the complainant charged Rs. 3,124/-
Again on 31/12/2021, the complaint was received, showing double image, flickering of the screen. It is found its panel need to be replaced but it is out of warranty.
The opposite party No. 1 put up a suggestion to supply of new TV set with latest model to a special price of Rs. 44,509/- on 15/01/2022. The complainant refused the said offer and demanded repairs of TV free of cost. Its parts was not available due to change of technology lapse of time, hence offer is made for exchange. There is no deficiency in service and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to A4 marked. Ext. A1 is the Bill copy, Ext. A2 is the cash receipt, Ext. A3 and A4 are messages. The opposite party filed documents and it is marked as Ext. B1 to B7. Ext. B1 is the Board resolution, Ext. B2 is the copy of the invoice of the TV set. Ext. B3 is the job sheet. Ext. B4 series are the photographs of the TV set. Ext. B5 is the job sheet. Ext. B6 is the copy of the email communication and Ext. B7 is the copy of the estimate.
From the rival contest, following points raised for consideration.
- Whether the opposite party is liable to supply spare parts of the TV for long period of its expiry of warranty?
- If a particular model is out of stock since its production stopped practically when company offer with replacement of another model, whether it can be termed as deficiency in service and insist production of old model TV life long?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service of opposite party?
- Whether complainant is eligible for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
Issue No. 1: It is admitted that opposite party stopped particular model of TV after long expiry of promised warranty period. Company is not liable to produce old model for life long when modern technology is advancing day by day. Therefore company made an offer to supply a new model TV. As and when old model production stopped it is not possible to replace old model itself.
Instead complainant has not sought refund of the amount paid to the TV. The TV is used for such a long period after it is purchased on 2016. The complaint is filed in the year 2022. Warranty is also over. Hence the claim is for replacement or refund of TV is rejected.
Since company has offered to exchange old TV with new TV on payment of the difference but complainant insist repair of the old TV and offer is not accepted. But admittedly TV is defective, but defective part is not available due to its non-production or otherwise, the complainant is entitled compensation as there is deficiency in service. Since TV they supplied is defective and no replacement of same model or cannot be repaired with new part.
Thus there is deficiency in service for which opposite parties liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- for which no evidence or basis. This commission is of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is found reasonable compensation and also Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing opposite party No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the complainant and also Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Bill copy
A2 – Cash receipt
A3 – Copy of email message
A4 – Reply message
B1 – Board resolution
B2 – Copy of the invoice
B3 – Job sheet
B4 – Photographs of TV set
B5 – Job sheet
B6 – Copy of the email communication
B7 – Copy of the estimate
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Kesavan Namboodiri
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
