Date of Filling:      29.01.2018

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  16.10.2019

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT: THIRU.  J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.                                 .…. PRESIDENT

                   TMT.      K. PRAMEELA, M.Com.                                         ….. MEMBER-I

                   THIRU.  D.BABU VARADHARAJAN, B.Sc., B.L.                 ..… MEMBER-II

CC.No.04/2018

THIS WEDNESDAY THE 16^th   DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

M.Dhanasamy,

No.32, 4^th Main Road,

Jayalakshmi Nagar,

Thirumullaivoyal,

Chennai -600 062.                                                                        …..Complainant.

                                                                //Vs//

1.M/s.Mani Electronics (Sathya)

    No.247, N.M.Road, Avadi,

    Chennai -600 054.

2.The clarify services,

    Sony Customer care,

    No.AA9, 2^nd Avenue,

   Anna Nagar, Chennai -600 040.

3.Sony Corporate Office,

   A-31, Mohan Co-operrative,

   Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

   New Delhi - 110044.                                                                    …..Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 27.09.2019 in the presence of complainant who has appeared in person and Mr.S.Sushilkumar, counsel for the opposite parties and having perused the document and evidence before this forum and hearing the argument on both sides, this Forum delivered the following.

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.J.JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been preferred by the complainant Under Section 12 of the consumer protection Act-1986 against the opposite parties for seeking a direction to replace the malfunctioning television to the complainant as per the warranty issued by the company otherwise replace the new television or to pay the cost price of the television and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of this litigation to the complainant.

2.The brief averment in the complaint filed by the complainant is as follows:-

The complainant purchased a SONY LED KDL 43W 800D from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.61,150/- with one year warranty on 30.06.2017 vide invoice No.170102224.  The 1^st opposite party issued warranty card stating that the warranty period will valid upto one year from the date of purchase i.e. April 2018. The Sony LED TV was worked properly till 02.11.2017 itself and the television was not working properly and the television is malfunctioning with a black spot about two inches initially and spread out about twelve inches in size.  Immediately the complainant registered the complaint to the 2^nd opposite party through the Sony customer care toll free No.18001037799 on 02.11.2017. The 2^nd opposite party technician has visited the complainant’s house and stated that there is an internal crystal crack in the screen caused by external physical damage.  It is absolutely a wrong portrayal of cause of the defect by the complainant’s his family don’t touch the screen.  Moreover there is no such sign of physical damage and also requested to consider his obligation and replace the television with completing the defects incurred in the TV.  The 2^nd opposite party discarded the complainant’s request and demanded to pay Rs.22,514/- for rectification of defects.  The complainant purchased the television with one year warranty.  Without lapse the warranty the 2^nd opposite party demanded Rs.22,514/-. It is totally unfair trade practice for a loyal customer since it is within the warranty period.  The complainant issued a notice to the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties to replace the malfunctioning television with a new one on 27.12.2017 and the same were received by them and sent reply by way of G-mail with false and containing unbearable allegations stating that the complainant physically damaged the television with external cause and charged Rs.22,514/- towards the replacement of display panel.  The service man has wrongly portrayed the condition of the television as external damage.  It is purely caused due to inferior quality of the product and the same was intimated to the 2^nd opposite party vides intimate G-mail by the complainant.  The complainant has no other option except filing this complaint before forum.  Hence this complaint.

3. The contention of written version of the opposite parties is briefly as follows:-

The complainant purchased a Sony KDL-43W800D IN5 having serial No.8616018 on 30.06.2017 from the 1^st opposite party after a detailed demonstration of the features and functions along with the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the aforesaid said television. The 3^rd opposite party provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. After purchasing the said television, the complainant for the first time approached the service center on 07.11.2017 raising an issue with display panel of the said television. The service center without any delay immediately attended the complaint and inspected the said television. After carrying out the necessary inspection, it was observed by the service center that the said television was brought to the service center in physically damaged condition with the panel broken and the cause of damage was external in nature or due to the negligence of the complainant.  Due to the damaged condition in which the said television was brought to the service center, the warranty stood void as per warranty policy.  That is the reason an estimated cost of Rs.22,514/- (including the transportation cost and cost of display panel + repair action)  was charged with the complainant.  But the complainant instead of approving the said estimate straightaway refused to go for the same.  The television display panels have thin glass sheet inside.  External surface is made of softer material.  In case of external impact, there may not be mark on external surface but inside glass sheet may break.  (Similar to fracture of human bones, there may not be marks on skin).  This is the reason that the television needs to be powered up to see the cracks.  The cause of damage was entirely external in nature or due to the negligence of the complainant.  The complainant has not furnished any document which establishes the fact that the said television in question was having some manufacturing defect.  In the absence of any strong proof, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It cannot be said that there was deficiency in service in relation to the subjected television when timely action has been taken by the 2^nd opposite party diagnose the issue pertaining the said television and the complainant was duly attended by 2^nd opposite party in such circumstances the question of deficiency does not arise.

4.  In order to prove the case, on the side on the complainant, proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked.  While so, on the side of the opposite parties, the proof affidavit submitted for their evidence and Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 were marked and also adduced oral argument on both sides. 

5. At this juncture, the points for determination before this Forum is as follows:-

(1)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

(2)Whether the opposite parties are liable to replace the television to the complainant?

(3)Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost from the opposite parties?

(4)  To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

6. Point No.1 & 2:-

The 1^st opposite party is a dealer of Sony television and the 2^nd opposite party is the Sony Customer Care office and the 3^rd opposite party is the Sony Corporate Office.  The complainant purchased a Sony KDL-43W800D IN5 having serial No.8616018 from the 1^st opposite party on 30.06.2017 for Rs.61,150/-.  Ex.A1 is the copy the Tax-Invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of the complainant. The 1^st opposite party also issued a warranty card stating that the warranty period will be valid up to one year from the date of purchase.  Ex.A2 is the copy of warranty card issued by Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi and therefore the warranty card is valid up to one year from the date of purchase that is up to June 2018.

7. The complainant alleged that the television worked properly till 02.11.2017 and thereafter the above said television was not working properly and the complainant registered a complaint through customer care toll free No.18001037799 to the 2^nd opposite party on 02.11.2017.  The complainant further alleged that the 2^nd opposite party’s technician inspected the said television and stated that there is an internal crystal crack in the screen caused by external physical damage and the same was absolutely wrong and the damage is due to manufacturing fault. On the other hand, the opposite party contended that on receiving the complaint the technician attended the complainant and inspected the television and it was observed that the panel was broken due to external cause and the same due to the negligence of the complainant and therefore as per terms and condition of the warranty card the complainant has to pay the cost for repair, but the complainant was not ready to pay the repair charges.  The opposite party further contended that the cause of damage was external in nature and due to negligence of the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore this forum has to find out whether the damage in the panel of the television is due to the negligence act of the complainant or due to some other reasons.

8. The complainant informed about the defect in the product on 02.11.2017 to the 2^nd opposite party and in turn the 2^nd opposite party inspected the said television and has given an estimate sheet for Rs.22,514/- towards repair charges, on 07.11.2017.  Ex.B6 is the copy of estimate in which it is stated that the LED Panel and cost of spare part is Rs.16,206/-.  But the 2^nd opposite party has not stated that the panel board was broken due the external cause.  If really the panel board was broken due the external cause then there may be some symptom of crack in outer screen of the television.  But herein this complaint there is no symptom of crack or damage in the screen of the television. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the television display panels have thin glass sheet inside, that external surface is made of softer material and in case of external impact, there may not be mark on external surface but inside glass sheet may break (Similar to fracture of human bones there may not be marks on skin).  The above argument of the opposite party is unsustainable because there is no single mark on the screen about the use of external fracture.  Further the opposite party has not filed any documents to show that the technician of the opposite party has seen the crack in the screen of the television.

9. The technician of the 2^nd opposite party has written in the service job sheet panel problem (Panel Broken) but he has not stated that the panel problem due to external cause.  Therefore the panel problem may not be due to the negligence of the complainant. The problem in the television occurred within five months from the date of purchase that is within the warranty period and therefore the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects on free of cost.  On the other hand, the opposite party charged Rs.22,514/- to rectify the defects in the television.  The above attitude of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

10. The complainant has not filed any documents to show that there is a manufacturing defect in the television.  Further the complainant has not taken any steps to appoint an expert to inspect the television to find out if there is any manufacturing defect in the product. Therefore this forum was unable to accept the allegation of the complaint that there is manufacturing defect in the television and therefore the complainant is not entitled for replacement of television.  On the other hand, the opposite parties jointly and severally are liable to rectify all the defects in the television on free of cost. Thus the point No.1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

11. Point No.3:-

The complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of this litigation.  The complainant purchased the television from the 1^st opposite party on 30.06.2017 for Rs.61,150/-.  The said television worked only for five months and thereafter it was not functioning. Therefore the complainant is unable to use the television in spite of spending more than 60,000/- for purchase of Sony LED television.  This might be caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  Further the complainant unable to use the television from 02.11.2017 till date.  The opposite party also has not taken any steps to rectify the defects on free of cost in spite of receipt of legal notice by the opposite parties.  Under these circumstances the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite parties.  Thus the point No.3 is answered accordingly.

12. Point No.4:-

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to rectify all the defects in the Sony LED KDL-43W800D television on free of cost and handed over the same to the complainant on working condition within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the cost of above said television to the complainant (i.e..Rs.61,150/-) within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severally further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and financial loss to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards cost of this litigation to the complainant.

The above said amount of Rs.20,000 +10,000 = Rs.30,000/- shall be  payable by the 1^st to 3^rd  opposite parties  within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum of this 16^th October 2019.

      -Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                                        -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                       MEMBER-I                                               PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the opposite parties:-

-Sd-                                                                -Sd-                                                         -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                       MEMBER-I                                               PRESIDENT