4. M/s. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd., Regd. Office: 3rd floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400 002 through its Chief Executive Office & CE$O Mr. Brian Bade e-mail : brian.bade@ril.com.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Complainant in person.
Opposite party No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 19.10.2021.
Sh. K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, counsel for opposite parties Nos.3 & 4.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Sony Smart TV Model KDL-42W 850A Serial NO. 4304659 from opposite party No.3 vide bill NO.11 dated 08.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.62,114.26. It was further submitted that the complainant had also taken the extended warranty from opposite party No.3 by paying a sum of Rs.9,410.25 paise vide bill NO.13 dated 03.05.2014. At the time of purchasing the above said Smart T.V. the representatives of opposite party No.2 had disclosed to the complainant that the said smart T.V would functioning very smoothly upto 10-12 years as the said 3-D smart T.V was Worldwide Brand name company’s T.V and their products were very expensive from the other company’s products also assured the complainant that in case if during that period in case if the said Smart T.V would create any problem then they were ca[able to repair the same as they had part of their products upt 15-20 years for providing the best services to their valuable customers. On believing the words of the said representative as well as keeping in view of the reputation of opposite party NO.2 in electronics Business Market, the complainant had purchased the said Smart 3-D T.V and the same was got financed from Bajaj Finance and the complainant had paid the full and final payment of Bajaj Finance according to their rules. After the purchase of 07 years of the said 3-D Smart T.C had created problem and the said T,V had stopped functioning on dated 26.06.2021. Upon which the complainant made a complaint to the customer care center of opposite party No.2. Representative of opposite party No.2 had given advised to approach to opposite party No.1. Upon which the complainant had approached to opposite party No.1. Thereafter, a mechanic/engineer of opposite party No.1 had visited to the house of the complainant on dated 29.06.2021 and after making the inspection of the said 3-D Smart T.V. the mechanic/engineer had disclosed to the complainant that a manufacturing defect had created in the said smart T.V. and the same would be repaired by opposite party No.1 at their service centre/workshop as the part of the same would be brought form opposite party No.2. The said mechanic/engineer had also charged a sum of Rs.200/- from the complainant as visiting charges and prepared a service job sheet on the same date i.e. 29.06.2021. The said mechanic/engineer had disclosed to the complainant that their representative would pick up the T.C of the complainant form the house of the complainant within 1-2 days. When till 05.07.2021 nobody came from the opposite party No.1 to collect the T.V then the complainant himself taken the same at the service center of the opposite party No.1 on 05.07.2021, where the opposite party No.1 had taken the delivery of the said T.V from the complainant and given another job sheet to the complainant on the same date and also assured the complainant that he could collect his repaired T.V within one week. After the expiry of one week time period when the complainant did not receive any telephonic call from the side of opposite party No.1 then complainant sent to opposite party No.2 and its Higher officials bvut when the complainant did not receive any response from the side of opposite party No.2 then the complainant sent various complaints to the opposite parties whereby the complainant had requested to them to replace the said defective T.V with a new one or to refund his amount alongwith interest. But the complainant did not receive any response from the side of the opposite parties. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) refund the amount of Rs.71,524.51 paise (Rs.62,114.26 paise + 9,410.25 paise) alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase of the above said T.V i.e.08.05.2014.
b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
d) any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
2. Registered notice issued to opposite party No.1 on 09.09.2021 not received back either served or unserved. Case called several times since morning but none had appeared on behalf opposite party No.1. More than one month had been expired. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.10.2021.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had purchased a Sony Smart TV Model KDL 42 W 850A, Serial No. 4304659(hereinafter referred to as the TV set) from opposite party No3 vide bill NO.11 dated 08.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.62,114.26. The complainant had used the said TV set for more than seven years to his utmost satisfaction as not a single complaint was received by the opposite parties prior to 30.09.2021. On 30.09.2021, The complainant herein for the first time approached the opposite party No.1 with the service request that there had been red LED blinking issue and as a result of same, the display of the TV set was not working properly. The said service was promptly attended by the opposite party No.1 vide job sheet NO. J11102264 dated 30.09.2021. At the time of said service request made by the complainant herein, the TV set was out of warranty. The said TV set was duly examined by the Service Engineer of the opposite party No.1 and upon the examination, the service engineer found that the main board and flexible flat cable needs to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the TV set. Accordingly, the service engineer informed the complainant. However, since the said TV set model was more than seven years old and hence the said part was not available with the opposite parties. Due to the technological advancement in the electronic products on a day to day basis, and TV set that was almost seven years old, the spare part was not available with opposite parties. Further, the opposite parties could not be saddled with the responsibility of maintaining of the spare part for indefinite period of time. Also, the opposite party No.2 reserves a right to decline the repair of a product in accordance with the clause 8 of the Standard Warranty terms and Conditions. Under Clause 8 of the Standard Repair Terms and Conditions of Sony India Private Limited, it was clearly “We re4serve the right to decline repair service of products if the product was more than 5 years old or if the product was damaged extensively or the condition had deteriorated such that reliable repair service could not be guaranteed, if the failure was caused due to lighting ,ingress of water, fire, or if the product had attended (repair service or modification) by any unauthorized person of if parts were procured by customer from any other source. The non availability of spare part was duly communicated to the complainant herein by the service engineer and thereafter, as a bonafide gesture on the part of the company, the opposite party No.2 herein vide email dated 19.07.2021 offered to exchange the complainant’s TV set with the latest model KD-43x75 IN5 at a special discounted offer of Rs.39,650/- having MRP of Rs.72,900/- even though the said TV set was out of warranty. Opposite party No.2 also informed the complainant that the said price was an exclusive offer made to the complainant as a valued customer of opposite party No.2. However, the complainant refused to accept the said offer and demanded the replacement of the said TV set with a new one, free of cost. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4 Opposite parties Nos. 3 & 4 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the present complaint was not maintainable against the opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 as no cause of action had arisen, as the complainant admittedly contacted the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 knowing fully well about no role of the opposite parties Nos.3 & 4. It was the case of opposite party No.3 that the Sony TV was supplied to the complainant without any problem & in a perfect working conditions nor had the complainant experienced any problems with respect to the Sony TV after its purchase after considerable period of time. Thus, no liability could be thrust on the opposite parties Nos. 3 & 4 for any kind of defect as alleged by the complainant. It was stated that opposite party No.3 did not open the packaging of the product in question unless the customer demands the same at the time purchase. Thus, the product was sold to the complainant as it was delivered by the manufacturer, in its multilayered, protective packaging and hence the opposite party No.3 had discharged its obligation completely. The complainant never ever informed about the alleged defect in the Sony TV knowing fully well about no role of the opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 & admittedly contacted the opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 & admittedly contacted the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and was directly in contact with the remaining opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 knowing fully well about no role of opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 in removal of the alleged defect as only the manufacture/service centre was responsible & authorized to resolve the alleged defect in the product which in any stretch of imagination could not be fastened on opposite parties Nos.3 & 4. It was also a well accepted fact that there was no role of retailer post sales of any product and it was always taken care by the service centre/manufacturer of the product. Hence, the responsible of the opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 was not even remotely connected with the alleged defect in the Sony TV of the complainant.Opposite parties Nos. 3 & 4 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Sai Electronics & Anr. with the prayer to: a) refund the amount of Rs.71,524.51 paise (Rs.62,114.26 paise + 9,410.25 paise) alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase of the above said T.V i.e.08.05.2014. b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses. d) any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Yogesh Khanduja, Invoice copy, Service job sheet,, emails, Adhaar card, Admission Form.
Shri K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite party No.2 has made a statement that the written statement already filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 be read as evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2. Therefore, evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2 has been closed vide order dated 28.4.2022.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 3 & 4 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Nos.3 & 4, Ex.RW3/A – affidavit of Satish Suryavanshi s/o Shri Tulsiram Suryanshi, Store Manager of opposite parties Nos. 3 & 4 Reliance Retail Ltd. Having its Store at Crown Interior Mall, Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad.
8. In this case, complainant had purchased a Sony Smart TV Model KDL 42 W 850A, Serial No. 4304659(hereinafter referred to as the TV set) from opposite party No3 vide bill NO.11 dated 08.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.62,114.26. The complainant had used the said TV set for more than seven years to his utmost satisfaction as not a single complaint was received by the opposite parties prior to 30.09.2021. On 30.09.2021, the complainant herein for the first time approached the opposite party No.1 with the service request that there had been red LED blinking issue and as a result of same, the display of the TV set was not working properly. The said service was promptly attended by the opposite party No.1 vide job sheet NO. J11102264 dated 30.09.2021. At the time of said service request made by the complainant herein, the TV set was out of warranty. The said TV set was duly examined by the Service Engineer of the opposite party No.1 and upon the examination, the service engineer found that the main board and flexible flat cable needs to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the TV set. Accordingly, the service engineer informed the complainant. However, since the said TV set model was more than seven years old and hence the said part was not available with the opposite parties. Due to the technological advancement in the electronic products on a day to day basis, and TV set that was almost seven years old, the spare part was not available with opposite parties. Further, the opposite parties could not be saddled with the responsibility of maintaining of the spare part for indefinite period of time. Also, the opposite party No.2 reserves a right to decline the repair of a product in accordance with the clause 8 of the Standard Warranty terms and Conditions. Under Clause 8 of the Standard Repair Terms and Conditions of Sony India Private Limited, it was clearly “We reserve the right to decline repair service of products if the product was more than 5 years old or if the product was damaged extensively or the condition had deteriorated such that reliable repair service could not be guaranteed, if the failure was caused due to lighting ,ingress of water, fire, or if the product had attended (repair service or modification) by any unauthorized person of if parts were procured by customer from any other source.”
9. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the non availability of spare part was duly communicated to the complainant herein by the service engineer and thereafter, as a bonafide gesture on the part of the company, the opposite party No.2 herein vide email dated 19.07.2021 offered to exchange the complainant’s TV set with the latest model KD-43x75 IN5 at a special discounted offer of Rs.39,650/- having MRP of Rs.72,900/- even though the said TV set was out of warranty. Opposite party No.2 also informed the complainant that the said price was an exclusive offer made to the complainant as a valued customer of opposite party No.2. However, the complainant refused to accept the said offer and demanded the replacement of the said TV set with a new one, free of cost. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 16.09.2022. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
