DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 227 of 12.6.2017

                                      Decided on: 4.10.2019

Parminder Singh son of Sh.Gurtej Singh, resident of 32, Grewal Avenue, Bhadson Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Amar Traders, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala, through its Prop./partner.
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: A-31, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, through its M.D.
3. Sankalp Electronics, Authorized Service Centre (Sony) Factory Area, Ist Gol Chakkar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member

ARGUED BY

                                       Smt.Mandeep Kaur, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Puneet Gupta,Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1to3. 

 ORDER

                                     M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Parminder Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s Amar Traders and others (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that the OP No.1 is carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Amar Traders, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala, the authorized dealer of Sony company i.e. OP No.2 who is manufacturer of the products and OP No.3 is authorized service centre of OP No.2.
3. The complainant has purchased one LED Sony 47" model for Rs.95000/- vide invoice No.R-1770 dated 9.10.2013 with manufacturing warranty of two years.
4. It is alleged that within warranty period the LED became defective . Due to defect in panel, complainant made complaint to OP No.3 vide No.2094 in December,2014.The OP No.3 changed the defective panel with new one free of cost on 27.12.2014 but Rs.600/- were charged as repair charges. The warranty was extended for further two years. The LED again started giving problem and stopped working in January/2016.The complainant made several requests through telephonic calls as well as e-mails for replacement of the LED. He also got served legal notice on 9.5.2016 through Sh.Sunil Kumar Garg, Advocate. In response to this, letter dated 31.5.2018 was received. LED panel was replaced vide retail invoice dated 21.9.2016. A sum of Rs.1840/- was charged as repair and transportation charges.
5. It is alleged that the LED never performed up to satisfaction or to the reputation of the company brand. It has been continuously giving problem since the date of its purchase. OP has failed to provide service as assured at the time of purchase of the LED.
6. Again in January/2017 the LED has completely stopped working. Matter was reported to OP No.3. LED was handed over to OP No.3 on 2.2.2017   vide job card No.J70303947.They delivered the same to the complainant on 10.3.2017 but the LED functioned only for one day after 10.3.2017. It is lying useless since 11.3.2017.On being informed by the complainant , OP No.3 has informed that the mother board is defective and the same needs to be replaced at the cost of Rs.11000/-.Complainant requested OP No.3 many times to replace the LED with new one as it is not functioning properly. OP No.1 has sold defective LED to the complainant. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs complainant has suffered financially as well as mentally. Complainant requested OP No.1 either to replace the defective LED or refund the amount of the same but to no response. The complainant has claimed Rs.95000/- as cost of the LED with interest @ 12% per annum, Rs.50000/- as damages/compensation and Rs.20000/-costs of the litigation.
7. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
8. In reply, the OPs raised preliminary submissions/objections, wherein it is admitted that as per record the complainant purchased LED on 9.10.2013 from OP No.1 after detailed demonstration of the features and functions alongwith detailed explanation of all the terms and conditions of the LED. That OP No.2 provides limited warranty of one year on its products from the time on its original purchase. The liability is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it. After enjoying LED for all most 15 months, complainant for the very first time approached the service centre (OP No.3) on 31.12.2014 raising an   issue “Blinking” in the said LED. OP No.3 without any delay immediately attended the complaint and inspected the LED. On inspection it was observed  that “PANEL” needs to be replaced. Since warranty period has already expired, therefore warranty stands void as per warranty policy but as goodwill gesture, the service centre instead of charging the cost of panel, charged only for transportation and service. The replacement of the part was done immediately free of cost.  16 months later the complainant again approached service centre on 19.4.2017 raising an issue with the panel of LED. This time also LED was out of warranty as it was brought to the service centre after expiry of warranty period. Due to void warranty normally the replacement of any part is on chargeable basis but this time also the service centre considering it as a special case requested the complainant to bear service charges only and not cost of panel which is usually high. The complainant paid service charges and LED was delivered  in a proper working condition.
9. Lastly the complainant approached the service centre on 11.4.2017 raising the issue of intermittent restarting problem with the LED.The service centre without any delay inspected the LED and observed that B-board needs to be replaced as the same was found in a damaged condition due to external impact or negligence of the complainant. Due to damaged condition of the B-Board warranty stood void. As per warranty policy  an estimated cost of Rs.10,442/- towards the repair of the LED was shared with the complainant. Instead of approving the estimate complainant refused to go for the same and started raising unreasonable demand and later on preferred this complaint on baseless allegations.
10. The OPs have also raised some other objections, reproduction of the same is not considered necessary, for the purpose of deciding the complaint. The OPs have also quoted some case law to support their pleadings, reference of which is also not considered necessary at this stage for the sake of brevity.
11. On merits the OPs have reiterated their stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above.In the end the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
12. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of slip, Ex.C1, copy of invoice, Ex.C2, copy of warranty card, Ex.C3, copy of job sheet dated 21.9.2016,Ex.C4, copy of job sheet dated 10.3.2017, Ex.C5, copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.C6, copy of legal notice, Ex.C7, postal receipts, Exs.C8 to C10, copy of legal notice, Ex.C11, postal receipts, Exs.C12 to C14, .
13. OPs have tendered into evidence affidavit of Meena Bose, Ex.OPA, copy of letter, Ex.OP1, Ex.OP2, copy of resolution, Ex.OP3, copy of standard warranty, Ex.OP4, copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.OPs have also submitted arguments.
14. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
15. After reiterating its stand as taken in the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant further submitted  that it is admitted that the complainant purchased LED from OP No.1 on 9.10.2013.The complainant has asserted that there was warranty of two years. The LED became defective and the OP has admittedly replaced the panel on 27.12.2014 free of cost. This fact itself proves that on 27.12.2014 LED was within warranty, otherwise the OP was not replace the LED free of cost.
16. The complainant has also pleaded that he got the warranty extended.Ex.C1 is the receipt vide which the complainant got extended the warranty. The OP has not issued any formal receipt or warranty card but receipt Ex.C1 is also not denied by the OP.
17. The LED again became defective on 1.8.2016 and the OP has discounted spare part charges of Rs.28609/-.This fact also proves that the warranty was extended otherwise OP was not to discount such a huge price of LED panel.Now the OP has refused to provide services and the replace the LED despite being within the warranty.
18. Complainant also placed on record copy of the reply to legal notice, Ex.C6,wherein the OP has again offered complainant to replace the parts free of cost and claimed only service charges of Rs.1374/-.In case warranty was not extended the OP was also not to replace parts free of cost. All this documentary evidence supports the case of the complainant. It is proved that there was repeatedly fault in the LED. It is only due to manufacturing defect .In these circumstances, complainant is entitled to replacement of the LED or refund of price with interest and compensation claimed for.
19. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that this Forum has to decide the complaint on the basis of terms and conditions and documentary evidence. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. He has pleaded that there was warranty of two years but complainant himself has placed on record warranty card, Ex.C3, which proves that the warranty was for one year from the date of purchase. The first defect reported by the complainant was on 27.12.2014 after expiry of warranty period.Despite this fact OP has replaced the panel as a goodwill gesture. The complainant has pleaded that he got extended the warranty but there is no evidence.The warranty cannot be held extended on the basis of slip,Ex.C1.There is nothing to show that it was for extension of the warranty.This receipt is against the payment of Rs.600/- which were paid by the complainant to get the needful done.The warranty has already expired after one year. Despite this fact the OP in order to maintain its goodwill has provided free services to the complainant.Therefore,the complainant is not entitled to any further relief and complainant cannot allege any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
20. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions.
21. Before proceeded we would like to make it clear that Forum has to decide the matter on the basis of agreed terms and conditions only.
22. The complainant has purchased the LED on 9.10.2013 for Rs.95000/-. Although the complainant has claimed that there was warranty of two years but the warranty card relied upon by the complainant as Ex.C3 proves that the warranty was for one year from the date of purchase. Therefore, this warranty was to expire on 9.10.2014.The first problem reported by the complainant was on 27.12.2014 which was after the expiry of warranty period.
23. Admittedly the OP has provided services free of cost of parts. Again the OP has provided services in the year 2016 free of cost. The point is whether the complainant can claim extension of the warranty on the basis of this free service.
24. The OPs have asserted that they have provided free services after expiry of warranty period only to maintain its reputation and as a matter of goodwill gesture. Complainant has also not brought on record any documentary evidence to prove that he was entitled to free service as a matter of right or under warranty. Complainant has tried to prove extension of warranty on the basis of writing Ex.C1 but there is nothing in this writing to prove extension of warranty. It only proves sum of Rs.600/- on 27.12.2014. It does not prove extension of the warranty. Therefore, the net conclusion is that there was no defect having developed during warranty period.
25. In these circumstances, the complainant cannot allege any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
26. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:4.10.2019

                                   B.S.Dhaliwal Inderjeet Kaur   M. P. Singh Pahwa

                                       Member               Member           President