PER HON’BLE M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the “Act”) is to the order dated 26.04.2018 in First Appeal bearing No. 511/2017 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”).  By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant, who is the Revision Petitioner herein. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the Complainant purchased a Sony TV on 14.03.2015 by paying a sum of ₹22,500/-.  It is averred that immediately after the purchase of the TV there were certain problems and the Complainant made a representation on 13.08.2014 to the Respondents but despite repeated requests there was no response.  On 13.09.2014, the Complainant approached the Respondents seeking replacement of the TV. As despite several e-mails there was no response, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking replacement of TV and compensation of ₹50,000/-. 

3.       The Respondents filed their Written Version stating that a warranty of one year is provided on the products from the date of its original purchase and their liability lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided.  The relevant terms of the warranty provided is reproduced in the Written Version as follows:-

“Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter, “Sony”) warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects during the period indicated in the section – “Valid Up to” on Product Information page.  This non-transferable warranty is only for the first end user on purchase from Sony Authorized Dealer.  Sony Service Centres/Authorized Service Centres will repair the product on the terms and conditions of below:-

Clause 1 – Warranty will be valid only when this Warranty Card and original Purchase Invoice are presented together for service.”

4.       It is averred that during the period of warranty, repair or replacement is the sole discretion of the Respondents.   The Complainant purchased the TV on 03.09.1998.  The warranty expired on 03.09.1999 and the Complainant used the TV for almost 16 years and approached the Opposite Party on 28.04.2014 after the warranty has expired.  On an inspection the Respondents found that the product has reached the end of its life and there is difficulty in getting the spare parts.  It was averred that the terms of warranty were binding on the parties; no evidence was led by the Complainant in support of his case that an e-mail was addressed to the Complainant on 14.10.2014 requesting him to upgrade his current model to the latest model and enjoy one year warranty on purchase of the new product as his product has reached the end of its life.  It is stated that the Complainant is taking undue advantage and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents and they seek dismissal of the Complaint with costs.  The District Forum and the State Commission concurred in their findings that the product was beyond the period of warranty and that the Complainant did not produce any expert opinion to prove that the Respondents sold the product with any manufacturing defect.

5.       The Complainant is present in person.  On a pointed query from the Bench whether the matter could be settled in an amicable manner, learned Counsel for the Respondents, on instructions, submitted that the Respondents were willing to replace the TV with a marginal discount, which was not acceptable to the Complainant, who was appearing in person. He vehemently contended that despite repeated requests the defects in the television were not rectified.  It is seen from the record that the Complainant had used the television for almost 16 years.  But it is the case of the Complainant that during these 16 years he had made several Complaints regarding the fact that the television was becoming blank.  Having regard to the fact that there is a time lapse as the TV was purchased way back in the year 1998 and the warranty period has long lapsed, repairing the subject product would be uneconomical.  We find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents that the product has reached its end of life and there is difficulty in getting the spare parts.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and to balance equities, we are of the considered view that the Respondents, as a goodwill gesture, can offer an upgraded model less 50% of its cost to the complainant if he is willing to accept the offer.  This Revision Petition is disposed of with the afore-noted observations.