Haryana

Panchkula

CC/184/2014

HARI NARAIN . - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S GOEL COMMUNICATION. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K SINGLA

23 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                                         

Consumer Complaint No	:	184 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	15.09.2014
Date of Decision	:	23.02.2015

                                                                                                                 

Hari Narain Singla S/o Sh.Satpal Singla, R/o H.No.9, New Gobind Vihar, Baltana, Distt. Mohali.

                                                                                                                  ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.         M/s Goel Communication, Hinori Road, Ladwa, Distt. Kurukshetra through its Proprietor.

2.         M/s Ultimate Services (Sony Authorized Service Centre), SCO No.55, Sector-5, M.D.C., Swastik Vihar, Panchkula.

3.         Sony India Private Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Coram:                       Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                  Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Mr.Vishal Madaan, Adv., for the complainant. 

                                    Op No.1 already ex-parte.

Mr.Rohan Mittal, Adv., for the Ops No.2 and 3.                        

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. Hari Narain Singla-complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a LCD TV Sony Bravia Model No.KDL-32EX720 IN5, Serial No.2021793 for Rs.29,800/- from the Op No.1 with warranty of one year on behalf of Op No.3. On 21.03.2014, the complainant tried to start the LCD TV but it could not start and he contacted the OP No.2 (authorized service center). On 22.03.2014, a service Engineer came to the house of the complainant who checked the LCD and told that it could not repaired at home. The service Engineer took away the LCD with him for repair and job sheet was also issued to the complainant with remarks “Scratches and Dusty LCD”. On 02.04.2014, the complainant contacted telephonically Op No.2 and asked about the repair of LCD TV but they replied that the LCD was found cracked. The complainant sent a mail dated 03.04.2014 to Op No.2 that ‘Upon inspection of the product engineer observed that it is LCD panel need to be replaced’ and further submitted that they were having difficulty in getting the necessary part, therefore, they offered the complainant to exchange the product with any of Bravia of current line-up at 75% of new Model Maximum retail price (25% discount on MRP) but the complainant refused to accept the offer given by the Op No.2.  On 15.07.2014, the complainant visited the office of Op No.2 and requested for repair/replace of LCD TV but the Op No.2 flatly refused to repair/replace the LCD TV. The complainant issued legal notice dated 21.07.2014 to the Ops with the direction to settle the claim of the complainant but the Ops failed to comply with the legal notice which act and conduct amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice issued to the OP No.1 through registered post and the same has not been received back served or unserved. It is deemed to be served. The Op No.1 is proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.12.2014.
3. The Ops no.2 and 3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.3 is engaged in the business of distribution and marketing of various electronics item under the brand name of ‘Sony’ and it holds a reputed position in the field of electronics. It is submitted that the products of the Op No.3 were sold to customers through a network of its authorized dealers and the after sales services on those products were provided through a network of its authorized service centers across the country. It is submitted that the Op No.3 (Soy India Ltd.) provided a limited warranty on its products and its liability laid in accordance with the terms & conditions of the warranty provided by it and the Op No.3 could not be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. It is submitted that as per warranty terms, the authorized service center was liable to provide free of cost repair on the product only during the warranty period and that too in cases of defect due to improper material or workmanship and not when the defect has arisen due to an external cause. It is submitted that the Op No.3 provided warranty on the product and not guarantee. It is further submitted that as per clause 8 of the warranty terms “This warranty shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening, lngress of water, fire or acts of God, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control and/or any damage caused due to tampering of the product by an unauthorized agent”. It is submitted that once the warranty period expired or the warranty is rendered void, the Ops were not liable to provide free of cost repair or replacement of the product. It is submitted that the complainant purchased a Sony LCD TV bearing model No.KDL-32EX720, serial No.2021793 on 14.05.2013. It is submitted that the complainant approached the OP No.2 for the first time on 24.03.2014 after using the product for a period of ten months with the complaint of “LCD not working”. It is submitted that the service Engineer inspected the LCD at the residence of the complainant and informed that the LCD would have to be taken to the workshop in order to ascertain the reason for the problem. It is submitted that after internal inspection, it was found that the problem was arisen due to a crack in the LCD panel which was required to be replaced in order to render the LCD functional. The complainant was informed about the crack in LCD and the repairs of the LCD would be carried out on a chargeable basis. It is submitted that due to unavailability of the necessary spare part, the Ops were unable to carry out the repairs in the LCD and the complainant was informed vide email dated 07.07.2014 and in lieu thereof, the complainant was offered to exchange the LCD with any of the Bravia LCDs of the current line-up at a discount of 25% on the MRP. The complainant was further informed that the new LCD would come with a full warranty of one year and the latest technology but the complainant refused the offer and insisted to provide a replacement free of costs. It is submitted that the Ops tried their best to explain to the complainant that free of costs replacement could not be provided in cases where the warranty has been rendered void. It is submitted that Op No.3 vide its letter dated 18.08.2014 requested the cooperation of the complainant.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of Ops No.2 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the Ops No.2 & 3 has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Annexure OP2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 to R2/4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely.
6. It is apparent from a perusal of the pleadings made by the parties that the purchase of the LCD was made by the complainant on 14.05.2013 (vide Annexure C-1) and he made the complaint about the defect on 21.03.2014. There also is no controversy that a service engineer visited the premises of the complainant on 22.03.2014 and took away the LCD to the repair center of OP No.2 on the premise that it could not be repaired at the house of the complainant and that it needed to be taken to the service center. The averment made by the complainant in para No.4 of the complaint that the service engineer had taken away the LCD on his motorcycle has not been controverted in the corresponding para of the written statement. That corresponding para also does not controvert that the service engineer had recorded in the service job sheet that the LCD was having scratches and that it was dusty LCD.
7. It would be pertinent to notice that the OPs have categorically averred that the repair had to be undertaken free of cost only if the defect was pointed out during the warranty period. In the course of the written statement and the affidavit in support thereof, the authorized official has made an averment that the warranty had been rendered void as the LCD panel was found to be cracked. A further averment that the complainant was informed that the repair of the LCD would be carried out on a chargeable basis, an offer which was not acceptable to the complainant. As per the averment made in the course of the written statement, the terms and conditions of the warranty are recorded in Annexure RW1/2. As it is, there is no documentation bearing the Annexure RW1/2. The photocopy of the warranty card is Annexure R2/3 – Annexure-3. The relevant column (‘Valid upto’) is blank. If we turn to Annexure C-3 (which is an almost illegible photocopy of the warranty card), the column is not blank but the period of currency of warranty is not legible. However, the word ‘Year’ is indeed readable. The digit/word recorded prior to the expression ‘Year’ is not legible. We can, thus, legitimately draw an inference that the warranty period was not less than one year. This inference is buttressed by the fact that the OPs conspicuously refrained from mentioning the period of currency of the warranty in the written statement and the affidavit filed in support of the averments made therein. By the very nature of things, the duration of a warranty period would have been documented in the records of the OPs and the non-production of the relevant documentation would justify an inference that the OPs have withheld it as the production thereof would have been against it.
8. In the course of Annexure R2/4- Annexure R4, an official of OP No.3 informed the complainant that “this product has not been sold in India”. That averment is not in accord with the pleadings made by the OPs who did not controvert the factum of purchase of the LCD under reference in India. Further, in the course of Annexure C-3, an authorized officer of the OPs informed the complainant that the LCD panel needed to be replaced and that the defect, if any, could be located only upon the replacement thereof. However, in the course of the written statement, the plea made is that the LCD screen was found cracked. If that were so, there is no reason why the service engineer of the OPs, who visited the house of the complainant, would not have recorded that fact in the job sheet.
9. In the light of discussion in the preceding paras of this order, we would allow this complaint and direct as under: -

      a)         The OPs shall either repair the LCD TV to the satisfaction of the complainant or replace it with a new LCD TV.

      b)         The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the agony and mental harassment caused to him.

      c)         The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the litigation cost.     

10. The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

23.02.2015                ANITA KAPOOR                              DHARAM PAL

                                    MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.    

 

 

                               

                                                                        ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                                                MEMBER