BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.104 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 02.04.2019

      Date of Decision: 08.06.2023

Shri Shashi Bhushan son of late Shri Krishan Chand, House No.3, Chandan Nagar, Ward No.17, Sodal Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Prem Narain and Company, G. T. Road, Jalandhar through        its Authorized Signatory.

2.       Sigma Marketing Service, Sony Authorized Service Centre, 178,       Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar Through its Authorized     Signatory.

3.       Sony India Private Limited, Regd. Office A-18, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044    Through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   None for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP No.1 is the dealer of Sony products, OP No.2 is the Authorized Service Centre of the product, while the OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the product, having Registered Office at New Delhi. The complainant purchased Sony LED KD-55X9000F 8000424 from the OP No.1, vide Invoice No. GST/100915/18-19 dated 5.11.2018 for Rs.1,40,000.00. The unit was under one year complete warranty. The complainant purchased such a costly product after hearing tall claims given by the OPs, through their various advertisements. On or about 22.2.2019, a defect developed in the product that its screen became fault having black spot in it, which is increasing day by day. On seeing such defect in the property, the complainant made on-line complaint on the Customer Care vide ID No. 52927487 on 23.2.2019. On the said complaint, Service Engineer namely Raju from the OP No. 2 visited the premises of the complainant in order to check the product. The Engineer analyzed the defect and advised that the display panel of the LED and other parts were required to be changed. The complainant protested that the LED was purchased just 3 months ago and if the major parts of the LED would be changed, it would lose its credibility. The Engineer left the premises of the complainant without effecting making the product in working order. Again on 25.2.2018, the complainant again lodged complaint to the OP No.1 and higher management of the company through e-mail. The complainant received a phone call from Mr. Shrikant Sharma, Area Service Incharge from Ludhiana Office. The complainant told him about the bad attitude of Engineer at Jalandhar and also requested him to persuade the Engineer to behave properly and to save the reputation of the Company. CD containing the conversation between the deponent and Area Manager is on the record. Area Service Manager told that he was the only Engineer of the Company in Jalandhar and assured the complainant on phone to replace the product free of cost. The Engineer from the OP No. 2 considered the said repair requests as his complaint, he came to the house of the complainant and misbehaved with him, further saying that no repairs would be provided to the LED nor it would be changed. The complainant tried to persuade the Engineer of the OP No.2 that the product had manufacturing defect and was under warranty, as such, the same should be replaced with a fresh piece, but he flatly refused to consider the genuine request of the complainant. He further said that he would see to it as to how the LED is replaced. The complainant brought this fact to notice to higher management on 28.2.2019 and on the same day, the Company sent reply that the product could not be replaced. The complainant again approached the OP No. 3 to resolve the matter to avoid unwanted litigation, but the same did not evoke any proper response. The complainant spent a huge sum of Rs.1,40,000.00 in order to purchase the LED to have an enjoyable time, but he realized that he had committed a blunder in purchasing such a poor quality of product. The LED is not good than a box for the complainant and is of no use to him. The complainant served legal notice dated 2.3.2019 on the OPs. Despite service of the legal notice, the OPs willfully failed and neglected to remove the grievances of the complainant nor even sent reply to the said legal notice. The complainant approached the OPs, several times with a request to settle his claim, but to no effect. On account of their deficient and negligent services, the complainant has suffered tension, mental agony, harassment, humiliation, financial loss and loss of time and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to  replace the defective product with fresh piece free of cost. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that as per the records of the company the complainant herein purchased one Sony BRAVIA Model:KD-55X9000F having serial no.8000424 on 05/11/2018 for Rs.1,40,000/- from O.P.1 after a detailed demonstration of the features and functions along with the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the aforesaid TV. The OP No.3 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 TV, the complainant for the very first time contacted the Service Center on 26/02/2019 raising an issue of ‘Black Spot on Display’ of the said TV. The service center without any delay immediately visited the complainant's premise and inspected the said TV. After carrying out the necessary inspection, the service engineer was ready to repair and provide free of cost repair action to the complainant. But the complainant straightaway refused to go for any repair action. The complainant in fact started raising unreasonable demands. As a matter of policy, the service center was ready to provide In-Warranty services to the complainant but it is the complainant who was not ready for any repair action offered by the service center. Although the issue could have resolved by carrying out minor repair action but the complainant was not ready for same and demanded replacement of the said TV. In-Warranty services are meant for providing services during the warranty period. In case if any issue arises in the TV, the company through it's service center provides In- Warranty services and resolves the issue. In the present case as well, my service center immediately acted on the complaint made by the complainant and was ready to provided In-Warranty Free of cost services to the complainant but the complainant paid no heed to the same and started raising unreasonable demands. The sole purpose of the complainant seems to derive undue benefits from the answering OP’s. The Area Service In-Change spoke to the complainant and assured about the quality and services. The complainant initially agreed for the repair action but later on refuse to go for free of cost services offered by the OP’s. The OP No.3 even sent an email dated 28/02/2019 to the complainant and duly informed the complainant that there was that TV in question is an electronic product and failure may happen in course of time. This is the reason why the company offers 1 year of free service to its customers. The company in the said Letter assured the quality and reliability of the product and services. But the complainant paid no heed to the said letter and still stuck to the false claims made by the way of this present complaint. Pursuant to the said letter the complainant sent a legal notice dated 02/03/2019 on basis of false claims based and misrepresented facts and the said TV was duly responded by the reply to the said Legal Notice. The OP’s in the said reply rebutted all the false claims. But the complainant still stuck on the false claims and trying to derive undue benefits from the answering OPs. It is relevant to mention here that the OP’s were ready to provide In-Warranty services to the complainant but the complainant paid no heed to the same. It is further relevant to mention here that O.P’s repeatedly made efforts to provide In-Warranty services to the complainant but the complainant straightaway refuse to go for the same and raising unreasonable demands. No material evidence has been placed on record by the complainant which says that the said TV in question was having some inherent defect. The complainant has also not furnished any document which establishes the fact that the said TV in question was having some manufacturing defect. In the absence of any strong proof, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above facts it cannot be said that there was "Deficiency in Service" in relation to the subjected said TV. When timely action has been taken by the O.P.2 to diagnose the issue pertaining to the said TV and the Complainant was duly attended by O.P.2, in such circumstances the question of deficiency does not arise. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the TV by the complainant is admitted and the facts regarding raising an issue by the complainant of Black Spot on Display in the TV is also admitted and facts regarding visiting of technician from service center to the house of the complainant is also admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person only as none has appeared on behalf of the OPs since last so many dates and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the complainant very minutely.

6.                The complainant has proved on record the invoice Ex.C-1, vide which he has purchased Sony LED KD-55X9000F 8000424 from the OP No.1 for Rs.1,40,000/-. This fact has been admitted by the OP also. The grouse of the complainant is that he purchased the Sony LED on 05.11.2018, but on 22.02.2019, a defect developed in the product that its screen became fault having black spot in it, which was increasing day by day. The complainant has proved on record the conversation through emails between the OPs and the complainant. The first complaint got registered by the complainant was dated 23.02.2019. The complainant has proved on record the complaints given to the OPs through emails Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-12. He has alleged that despite the emails and complaints, the OPs took time to send their engineer. The engineer visited the site and inspected the LED and found that the display is to be replaced. The complainant asked the OPs to exchange the LED, which was refused by the OP.

7.                It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the product on 05.11.2018 and the warranty for the product was one year from the date of purchase as per Ex.C-2 and Ex.OP-3. The notice was also sent by the complainant Ex.C-13, which was replied by the OP Ex.OP-6. Perusal of Ex.OP-6 i.e. reply shows that the OP has admitted that the service engineer namely Raju from the OP No.2 visited the premises and advised that the display panel of the LED and other parts were required to be changed, but the complainant refused to replace the parts. The email Ex.OP-4 sent by the OP also shows that it has been admitted by the OPs that display panel needs to be replaced. The emails Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-12 shows that the complainant has narrated the problem faced by him after purchase of the Sony LED, the response of the OPs and the action taken by the OPs. Ex.C-6, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 shows that the OPs have declined the request of the complainant for exchanging the product.

8.                From the documents proved on record by both the complainant as well as the OPs, this fact is proved that the complainant spent huge amount of Rs.1,40,000/- for the purchase of the LED from the OPs. It is also proved that there appeared defect in the display mere after three months of the purchase of the LED. It is also proved that the OPs suggested to replace the display. The Sony India Pvt. Ltd./OP is a renowned company and a good brand. The behavior and the conduct of the OPs, by supplying the product having defect in it, clearly shows unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Apart from this, instead of exchanging the product due to the defect, which occurred mere after three months of the purchase, is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Though, warranty was given, but it does mean that the person who will spend this huge amount of Rs.1,40,000/- would opt or prefer for repair immediately after the purchase of the product. It is the duty of the service provider to provide product without any defect if they charge this huge amount for the product. This clearly shows that the opinion of the OPs in declining the request of the complainant for exchanging the product is wrong and illegal and the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to replace defective LED with new one with same model and same price to the satisfaction of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will be liable to refund the price of the LED with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its purchase. The complainant is directed to return the defective LED to the OPs at the time of receiving new LED or the refund. In case the complainant wants to purchase another superior LED, then the complainant will pay the balance amount to the OPs. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The compliance i.e. compensation and litigation expenses be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

 10.             Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

08.06.2023         Member                          Member              President