| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/164/18 Order Reserved on:- 15.04.2024 Date of Decision:- 30.09.2024 Date of Institution:- 11.04.2018 IN THE MATTER OF: Ashish Chaudhary Son of Late Sh. R. B. Singh, R/o L-176, First Floor, Sector-25, JalvayuVihar, Noida, U.P. .….. Complainant VERSUS - M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
Through it's Managing Director/In Charge/CEO,etc, A-18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044 - M/s Jaypee Electronics
Through it's Managing Director/in charge/partner/Porp. etc. Sony Authorised Service Centre, B-59, Ground Floor, Sector-6, Noida - NSI Infinium Global Pvt. Ltd./Infibeam.com
Plot No.27/28, Udyog Vihar Phase-Iv, Gurgaon – 122015 (Haryana) .…..Opposite Parties Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member - The complainant purchased a Sony LED TV, Sony KDL-48W-700C, on 03.11.2015 from OP-3 manufactured by OP-1. He paid a sum of Rs.68,030/- for the T.V. and was issued an invoice/bill No.GT-151103-185-0042 (Annexure-C-1).
- The complainant alleges that the T.V. had defects from the beginning in its visual, sound and display operations,such as poor colour, voice and picture quality. The complainant states he approached the O.P.s several times, but they did not entertain his grievance.
- Finally, the T.V. stopped working in July 2017. The complainant immediately contacted OP-3, who advised him to approach the authorised service centre of OP-1. The complainant, therefore, approached OP-2, who allegedly told the complainant that his T.V. had a manufacturing defect and the motherboard needed to be replaced on chargeable basis as the T.V. was out of warranty.
- The complainant paid Rs.8895/- including repair charges to OP-2 on 12.06.2017. The complainant was assured that his LED TV would work correctly, and if any repairs were needed within three months, OP-2 would undertake the replacement/repair of the defect or problem free of cost.
- In August 2017, the T.V. again stopped working, and the complainant visited OP-2 with his grievance. OP-2 assured the complainant that they would collect the T.V. from his residence but did not provide the service on one pretext or the other.The complainant had to approach customer care OP-1, after which OP-2 collected his T.V. on 14.08.2017 from his residence and assured him that the defect would be repaired within three days to his satisfaction.
- The complainant kept following up with OP-2 regarding his T.V. and called upon OP-2 to hand over his repaired T.V. It was only on 30.08.2017 that the executive of OP-2 told the complainant that the motherboard again needed replacement and was not available with them. Thus,due to the manufacturing defect in his T.V., OP-2 sent the T.V. to OP-1 as only the engineer of OP-1 could rectify the defect in the motherboard of the complainant's T.V. The T.V. was returned to the complainant by OP-2 with the assurance that if the defect arose again the only alternate would be to replace his T.V. with the same model or with a new LED TV.
- However, after two days, the complainant faced the same issue and again contacted OP-2, who retook the T.V. in September 2017. OP-2 assured that the T.V. would be repaired within three days free of cost as the same was within the warranty period from the last repair date.
- The complainant approached the O.P.s repeatedly to no avail. He then wrote an e-mail dated 08.10.2017 to OP-1, who replied on 09.10.2017, denying the complainant's request to replace the LED TV despite repeatedly repairing the same (Annexure-C-2 Colly).
- The complainant alleges that when the O.P.'s did not comply with his request to replace his T.V. with a new one, he was forced to purchase another T.V. on 24.10.2017 (Annexure-C-3), causing him an extra financial burden.
- When OP-1 neither changed his T.V. nor returned the repaired T.V. to date, the complainant served a legal notice dated 23.10.2017 to the O.P.s(Annexure-C-4), but the O.P.s still did not take any corrective action.
- Hence,alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s, the complainant filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying for the following directions to the O.P.s:-
- To severally or jointly change his defective LED TV of the same range with warranty as per rules or alternately pay his the sum of Rs.68,030/- i.e. actual cost of the T.V. with interest @24% p.a. from date of purchase, i.e. 03.11.2015 till actual payment.
- Rs.5,72,000/- towards compensation along with interest@24% p.a. till recovery.
- Future damages/compensation @Rs.500/- per day until actual payment and litigation cost.
- Notice was issued to the O.P.s who filed their replies. OP-1 and 2 filed a joint reply stating therein that the complainant's LED TV purchased on 03.11.2015 from OP-3 provided a warranty of 1 year. The warranty terms are annexed as Annexure-R-3 with the reply of OP-1 and 2.
- The complainant approached OP-2 on 17.05.2017 after almost one year and six months for the first time for the issue of "Red Light Blinking" in his T.V., i.e. after the warranty period had expired. OP-1 and 2 admit that on inspection, they observed that the "Board" needed to be replaced on payment basis of Rs.8,895/-. The complainant returned on 12.06.2017 after initially refusing to pay the cost for replacement,after which OP-2 replaced the "Board" of the complainant's T.V. and delivered it to his residence in proper working condition.
- The complainant again approached OP-2 on 14.08.2017 with "8 X LED Blinking" issue in his T.V.This time, O.P.-2 replaced the spare part"COMPL SVC BAX-L2-XML-PA [A2070506B]" free of cost to rectify the problem.The complainant contacted OP-2 on 29.09.2017 once again with the issue "8 X Blinking" in the T.V. The OP-1 & 2 state in their reply that the O.P.s were ready to repair the T.V. on cost, but the complainant did not give the approval and raised unreasonable demands. They have annexed the job sheet dated 29.09.2017 as Annexure-R-4 with the reply.
- Despite resolving the complainant's grievance, every time it was raised, the complainant demanded damages via e-mail, to which OP-1 replied on 09.10.2017, denying his request to exchange the LED with a fresh one. The complainant was also informed that the 'Board' needed to be replaced for better functioning of the T.V. Annexure-R-5 is a copy of the aforementioned e-mail. The OP-1 and 2 hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- OP-3 filed itsreply stating that OP-3 is merely an online seller of branded and non-branded products through its website on as as-is basis. The complainant had ordered the LED TV manufactured by OP-1 on 16.10.2015 through the OP-3 website, which was delivered to him at the shipping address on 13.11.2015. Thus, OP-3 would be liable if the product suffered any loss in transit or physical damage.However, in this case, the complainant has an issue with the product's working, and the complainant has not raised any complaints regarding damage at the time of receipt of the the T.V. in 2015. OP-3 cannot be held liable for the functionality of the T.V. he used.
- The complainant filed the rejoinder and his affidavit in evidence, reiterating the averments made in his complaint. OP-1, 2 & 3 filed the affidavit of Sh. Priyan K Chauhan, AR for all the OPs. Thereafter, thecomplainant filed written arguments, as did OP-3. We heard the complainant and OP-3 and gave OP-1 & 2 liberty to address arguments within 07 daysas they did not appear on date fixed for final oral arguments before the order was reserved.
- We have perused the documents filed by the contesting parties carefully and reviewed the facts and circumstances of the present case.
- We find that the complainant purchased a Sony LED TV KDL-48W-700C manufactured by OP-1 by placing an order through the OP-3 website on 03.11.2015. He paid Rs.68,030/- for the same.Annexure1 is a copy of the purchase invoice issued to the complainant. The complainant's T.V. came with a warranty of one year (Annexure-R-3). The complainant used the T.V. satisfactorily during the warranty period. However, after the warranty period had lapsed, the complainant's T.V. became defective.
- He approached OP-2, the authorised service centre, on 17.05.2017, i.e. six months after the warranty had lapsed. He paid the cost of repair/replacement on 12.06.2017. OP-1 and 2 admit in their testimony that theyreplaced the "Board" of the complainant's T.V. onchargeable basis as the complainant's T.V. was out of warranty.
- However, the complainant returned to OP-2 on 14.08.2017, i.e. only after two months of repair and replacement of the "Board" with the issue of "8 X LED Blinking". Despite having replaced the motherboard of the complainant's TV OP-1 and 2, again replaced a part "COMPL SVC BAX-L2-XML-PA (A2070506B)"free of cost, as stated by them, and returned the T.V. to the complainant with the assurance that the issue with his T.V. was now rectified.
- The assurance of OP-1 and 2 proved to be in vain as the complainant had to go to OP-2 on 29.09.2017, once again,as admitted by OP-1 and 2 for the same problem of "8 X LED Blinking" within 45 days of the last repair. This time, OP-1 and 2were ready to repair the T.V. but on payment of repair charges. The complainant refused the repair and demanded replacement of his T.V.When the O.P.s denied his request, the complainant filed the present complaint.
- OP-1 and 2 filed their joint reply admitting to the issues as detailed by the complainant in his complaint; however, the O.P.s state that they promptly repaired the complainant's T.V. every time he raised them with OP-2 as per the terms of the warranty on 12.06.2017, 14.08.17, 29.09.2017 replacing the required non-functioning parts on payment as required on cost as the warranty of the T.V. had already lapsed. Hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the OP-1 and 2.
- OP-3 has stated that it is merely an online website and is not liable for any issues with the product's functioning. They are only responsible for the safe and smooth delivery of the product. Since the complainant used the T.V. for more than a year without any complaint about transit or delivery, O.P.-3 cannot be held liable in this case.
- OP-3, the website through which the complainant purchased the LED TV on 03.11.2015, delivered the product tothe complainant safely. In his testimony, the complainant has not whispered a word regarding the delivery or any issue with the T.V. at the time of receipt.Further, he used his T.V. without problems for over a year. Hence, there was no issue with the product delivery, receipt, or any issue thereof, for which OP-3 canbe held liable. Therefore, we do not feel OP-3 can be held liable if any deficiency in service is found in this case pertaining to the functioning of the T.V. in question and,hence,absolve OP-3 from the present case.
- Now, coming to OP-1 and 2, in our considered view, a warranty is given for a product to safeguard the consumer regarding any issues that crop up in a product that has been purchased. Each product comes with a warranty, which is defined as below:
a written guarantee given to the purchaser of a new appliance, automobile, or other item by the manufacturer or dealer, usually specifying that the manufacturer will make any repairs or replace defective parts free of charge for a stated period of time. In the present complaint, the complainant's LED TV purchased on 03.11.2015 came with a warranty of one year, as is evident from Annexure-R-3,which is annexed by OP-1 and 2 with their Reply at Pg.no. 14. It clarifies that the Standard Warranty applicable on SONY BRAVIA, The T.V. that the complainant purchased was for one year with an option of purchasing an extended warranty. - The complainant used his T.V. in the warranty period without any complaint. Six months after the lapse of the given warranty, the complainant's T.V. began having problems. Admittedly, the complainant paid for its repair and got the T.V. repaired from OP-2 on 12.06.2017. OP-2, the authorised service centre of OP-1, replaced the motherboard of the complainant's T.V. on payment of repair cost.
- The motherboard is a vital component of any LED TV. It serves as the central hub that connects all the other components, ensuring smooth functionality and efficient performance, as per the literature found on the motherboard's function as under:-
What is the main board? The Main board also sometimes called the motherboard (comparison is made with a computer motherboard) is the circuit board with the audio and video inputs and outputs connected to it. This is the brains of a T.V. and can generally be divided into four main functions: 1. Through the CPU and MCU (microcontroller unit) processors it controls the system via multiple signals. For example it is the main board that tells the power board to turn on the backlight; it tells the panel when to turn on/off etc. 2. Process different types of video signal inputs as is evident by the multitude of video connectors i.e. HDMI, COAX, Component etc. It is the Main board that converts these video signals into an RSDS type video signals which is then send to the T-con board via the flat ribbon LVDS cables. 3. The Main board also includes the audio I.C. (including the audio amplifier where the speakers then connect to 4. The Main board contains a large DC-DC section. It is here where after receiving the power from the power supply board the appropriate voltage for the rest of the system will be determined. Tuner voltages, CPU and GPU as well as the RAM voltage etc., get controlled from here. If the T.V. should poses 3D or Wi-Fi capacity the Main board will also be in control of those peripheries. - Despite changing the motherboard of the complainant's T.V., after only two months, the complainant approached OP-2 with the '8X LED Blinking' defect. OP-2 replaced another part "COMPL SVC BAX-L2-XML-PA [A2070506B]", in the T.V. on 14.08.2017 free of cost. However, the same issue of '8X LED Blinking' cropped up again on 29.09.2017, i.e. within forty-five days of the part replacement.The complainant was asked to pay for this repair, which he refused, and he requested the replacement of his T.V., which OP-1 and 2 denied.
- A consumer purchases a product not simply to use it within the warranty period but for several years afterwards. In this case, the complainant had to approach OP-2 to get his T.V. repeatedly repaired as one or the other part needed repair or replacement.
- A simple reading of the facts of this case makes it amply clear that the complainant paid for the replacement of the motherboard as his T.V.'s warranty of one year had lapsed. Thereafter, his T.V. should have been defect-free. However, he found another defect, '8X LED Blinking,'within a few months of the replacement.
- And even though OP-2 replaced the spare part as per their testimony "COMPL SVC BAX-L2-XML-PA [A2070506B]" on 14.08.2017, the complainant returned to them on 29.09.2017 with the same issue despite replacing the part after having already replaced the motherboard for which the complainant had paid the repair charges. The very fact that his T.V. was not rectified and he faced the same issue of '8X LED Blinking' again after the spare part was changed within 45 days leaves us in no doubt that the T.V. had some defect that the O.P.'s- 1 & 2 could not repair which is tantamount to deficiency in service.
- The complainant would have indeed undergone mental harassment to keep getting the T.V.repaired,and the complainant deserves to be compensated for the harassment faced due to their negligent service.
- Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct OP-1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay the complainant a lump sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the mental agony and harassmentand Rs.7,000/- towards litigation costs to the complainant.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 30.09.2024.
| |
