IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 14th day of March, 2019
Filed on 19.01.2018
Present
- Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2. Smt. Sheela Jacob, B.com,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.11/2018
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri..S. Sasikumar 1. M/s Bright Care
Sreekovil , Karalakam Ward Sony Authorized Service Centre
Thathampally. P.O 1st Floor, Kallupura
Alappuzha-688013 Juma Masjid Building
Near Kallupalam, MO ward
Alappuzha
2. M/s SONY INDIA
Head Office, A-18, Mohan Co Operative
Industrial Estate, Madhura Road,
New Delhi, Pin-110044
3. M/s Sony India
2nd Floor, Music Tower, S.A.Road
Kadavanthara, Cochin-682020
(Rep: by its Adv. Jayakumar)
O R D E R
SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM (PRESIDENT)
This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
1. The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The elder son of the complainant when he got employment at Abudabi purchased one Sony TV set for the complainant and other family members brought and installed at the residence. However on 1/01/2016 the said TV set became defective. On the same day he contacted the 1st OP who is the service centre of the Sony TV, at Alappuzha. On the basis of his request one service technician deputed by Sony India Company came to his residence on 7/1/2016 and verified his TV Set and told him that the screen of the TV set has become defective and as the warranty period was already over he has to pay the expenses for curing the defects. According to the service technician new screen would costs Rs. 11,800 for which he paid Rs. 5000/- as advance. After a few week it was informed that the screen is not available at the Sony company and therefore technician returned Rs.5000/- received as advance and also told him that he will substitute a new TV set for a price less than 25% of the market price. He has also received back the original of the service invoice and job sheet. The Sony Company is bound to repair the defective TV set supplied and manufactured by them and there is an implied agreement between the purchaser and the company which is a multinational company to the effect that the manufacturing company is bound to make available spare parts of the TV set and get it repaired. However the opposite party company with a view to make unjust enrichment has not been supplying spare parts and insisting him to purchase a new TV set. Inspite of his request to the effect that the Sony Company is bound to make available the spare parts and get the defects repaired; they ignored his request and directed him to through away TV set at the sea. The son of the complainant has purchased Sony Tv for 1800 Abudabi Dirhams which is equlant to Indian Rs. 31,188/-. He waited for more than 2 years to get the defect cured. Now the condition of the defective TV set has become worsened and it cannot be repaired at all. The complainant filed grievance petition through online to the Prime Minister but of no use. Inspite of sending reminder and 3rd petition no action has been taken in this regard. Hence the complaint.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and resisted the complaint by filing a joint written version raising the following contentions.
The complaint is not maintainable either on law or in facts. However they would admit that complainant has purchased one Sony TV set bearing No. KlV-32BX300 having serial no1255626. But according to the opposite parteis the complainant has not mentioned the date of purchase of the TV nor produced any bill or invoice along with the complainant. The opposite party No.2 has also produced a limited warranty of one year and the liability to get the defective product repaired is strictly in accordance with terms and conditions of the warranty and the company is not liable for the claim falling outside the scope of the warranty. The Ops have also produced a copy of warranty conditions along with written version. That after purchasing the said TV the complainant approached the service centre on 08/01/2016 with the TV in a physically damaged condition. The service centre without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the TV. Upon inspection it was observed that the display panel of the TV was found defective. The service engineer after inspection observed that the cause of damage was entirely external in nature. It is submitted that due to physically damaged condition of the TV, the warranty stands void as per warranty conditions. The display panel of the TV needs to be replaced as the same got damaged due to external cause. Hence, the service centre shared an estimated cost of repairing the TV. The service center further informed the complainant that at that time it is difficult for the company to arrange the “part” of the TV and in case if it is not available then the Op’s are ready to exchange the said TV with new TV at 25% discount on MRP. The said offer was given as a service e solution to the complainant. But the complainant was not ready to accept such offer and rather started raising unreasonable demand. The sole purpose of the complainant seems to derive undue benefits from the OP’S. Instead of accepting the offer, the complainant started raising unreasonable demands and ultimately preferred to file this present complaint on the pretext of baseless allegation. The complainant has also not furnished the original Bill/ Invoice which is the mandatory condition as per the warranty terms for carrying out any repair action. It is necessary for producing the Bill/ Invoice at the time of complaint so that the date of purchase can be identified and genuineness of the dealer can be checked. The complainant has also not furnished the date of purchase of the TV set in the complaint. It seems that the TV is an old model and that’s the only reason for the non availability of spare parts. It is submitted that despite all the above facts, the service centre tried its best to resolve the issue by offering an exchange of TV with the new one at a discount of 25% on MRP. But the complainant refused to accept the same and started raising unreasonable demands. It is submitted that the OP’s cannot be held liable in any way considering the facts of the case. The LED got damaged due to external cause of which is due to the negligence of the complainant. In such a scenario, the OP’s are not liable at all and the burden of proof is on the complainant to establish as to what went wrong in the broken TV panel. Despite the condition of the TV which was damaged, the service centre took all possible measures to resolve. Offer of exchange with new TV at a discount of 25% was also given by the Op’s. But it is the complainant who paid no heed to the same and started raising unreasonable demands and later on filed the present complaint against the Op’s on the pretext of baseless allegations. The complainant has no material to prove that the TV in question was having some inherent defect. The complainant has also not furnished any document which establishes the fact that the TV in question was having some manufacturing defect. In the absence of any strong proof, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Had there been any inherent defect the complainant would have surely contacted OP’s right in the beginning. But herein the present case the complainant raised issue after satisfactorily using the TV initially for good enough time and later reported the issue when the LED was in a damaged condition. In fact Op’s tried their best to resolve the issue but it is the complainant who paid no heed to the offer given by the OPS Hence OPS cannot be held liable in any way. There is no “Deficiency in Service” in relation on the side of Opposite parties especially whom timely action has been taken by the 2nd OP to find out the issue pertaining to the TV and the complaint was duly attended by 2nd OP in such circumstances the question of deficiency does not arise at all.
3. In view of the above pleadings the points that arise consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the
Part of the opposite party.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the defective TV set replaced
by a new one?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation if so what
would be the quantum of compensation is to be awarded?
4. Relief and Costs?
4. When the case was taken up for regarding the evidence, the opposite party was called absent and there was no representation. The complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked as Ext.A1 to A8 documents.
Heard the counsel for the complainant.
5. Point No.1 to 3:-
For avoiding repetition discussion of materials these 3 points are considered together. The unchallenged averments in the proof affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 to A8 documents would established that the complainant’s son purchased one Sony TV and installed at the residence of the complainant for the beneficial enjoyment of the complainant and other family members. The Model no. of the TV set is KLV-32bX300,110-240V ac, 50/60Hz, 109W, SERIAL NO is 12554626. However on 1/11/16 the said TV set became defective and on intimation one service technician deputed by the SONY INDIA Company reached at residence of the complainant on 7/1/2016 and after verification of the TV set it was informed that the screen of the TV set has become defective and as the warranty period was already over the complainant has to pay Rs.11,800/- being the expenses cure in the defects. Ext.A1 is the Service Job Sheet which would indicate that the customer has made a complaint to the service technician that line in display panel is defective and to cure the defect Rs. 11,800/- has to be paid the complainant. It is also clear from Ext.A1 that the complainant has paid Rs 5000/- as advance for curing the above defect. Ext.A2 is the receipt for receiving above the advance from the complainant on 7/1/2016. Ext.A3 is the G-mail communication received from SONY Company to the affect that panel is short supply and hence SONY company made an offer of special discount of 25% on MRP to by any Bravia Model from their current lineup. It is also stated in Ext.A3 that in case the complainant is willing he will get a fresh one year warranty and can extend the warranty upto 3 years by purchasing an extended warranty card by paying Rs. 2,500/-. Ext.A4 is the intimation sent by the complainant on 27/1/2016 requesting to do the need full and intimating that if necessary action has not been taken he will file a complaint before the Consumer Court. The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A5 document would indicate that the complainant has registered grievance petition before the Centralized Public Grievance Redressal and monitoring system. Govt. of India requesting to replace the defective TV. However no action has been taken, regarding the complaint. Ext.A6 and Ext.A7 are the extract of reminder sent by the complainant raising the above request. Ext.A8 is the copy of the Aadhaar card of the complainant.
6. The contention of the opposite party in the written version is that the complainant has not produced the warranty card /Bill or invoice to prove the actual date of the purchase of the TV. The date of the purchase of the TV is also not mentioned in the complaint. According to the opposite party as the date of the purchase is not stated it is to be considered that the TV set is an old one and that is why spare parts are not available. However the pleadings and evidence including Ext.A1 and A2 documents would indicate that the opposite parties technician has verified the TV set and the model no and the defect is stated in Ext.A1. It is not recorded in the Job Sheet that TV set is an old model and hence there is no chance of getting the spare parts. The further contention of the opposite party is they have made an exchange offer that a new TV at a discount of 25% of the MRP will be given to the complainant. But the complainant was not amendable for the same and insisting to get the TV repaired by replacing the panel. Sony Company is a reputed company for manufacturing TV set and other Electronic products. It is clear from the available materials that the TV set was purchased by the son of the complainant for the enjoyment his family members including the complainant by paying Indian Rs. 31,000/- and odd. In other words the Sony TV set is having more price than similar product manufactured by other companies. Even though the warranty period is one year and the period of warranty has already been expired, the opposite party company is expected to replace the defective parts of the said TV at the expense of the customers. They are bound to provide the defective parts within a reasonable period. Generally a TV Set is expected to be used at least for 10 years. If any defect has been occurred during 10 years authorized service centre is expected to cure the defects within a reasonable period by making available in the spare parts from the manufacturing company at the expense of the customer. Here in this case the unchallenged oral evidence of the complaiannt and Ext.A1 and A2 documents would indicate that the complainant had paid Rs. 5000/- towards advance for replacing the defective parts of the TV set. But the opposite party has failed to replace the defective panel. According to them the spare panel is not available. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However as the complaint has used the TV for at least 2 years he is not entitled to get the entire costs of the TV. Furthermore bills or invoice showing the price of the TV is not available. Complainant has also sought for compensation for the mental agony and financial loss. In view of the prayer one and two the complaint, we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get Rs. 25000/- as loss caused to the complainant for not repairing the defective TV and also as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant in this regard. Point answered accordingly.
7. Point No4:-
In the result the complaint stands allowed in following terms.
1) Opposite party 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for not curing the defect of the TV set and also as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant.
2. Ops No.1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- to the complainant as costs of the proceedings.
3. Ops No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs for the proceedings, within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to recover Rs. 25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization with costs Rs. 5000/- from opposite party No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 14th day of March, 2019.
Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Sd/-Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of Service Job Sheet.
Ext.A2 - Copy of Service Invoice.
Ext.A3 - Copy of G-mail communication.
Ext.A4 - Intimation dtd.7/1/2016.
Ext.A5 - Copy of Grievance Status.
Ext.A6 - Copy of Reminder/Clarification form.
Ext.A7 - Copy of Grievance Status.
Ext.A8 - Aadhaar Card.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
