BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES      
      REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU
    1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD,   
      SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

                       26^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

ORDER

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER:

1. The complainant has filed this complaint U/S.12 of the old  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 35 of New  C.P Act, 2019 against the Opposite party and prays for direction to the O.P. to  replace 32 inch new LCD TV of energy efficient with all guarantees and warranties on free of cost along with litigation charges of Rs.10,000/- .

2.  The Brief facts of the complaint are that

The complainant purchased a Sony LCD TV from M/s Metro cash and carry Pvt. Ltd., #26/3, Industrial suburb, “A” Block, Subramanya Nagar, 9^th ward, Bangalore 560055.  The complainant had no problem with the said T.V up to 2018 and he satisfactorily enjoyed the programmes on the T.V.  On 15^th April 2018 first time, a problem has brought up and started to form vertical black lines on the T.V screen.  Thus, the complainant wants to get a solution to the problem and he spoke with the OP’s customer care center and also sent an e mail to M/s.Sony office.  After registering the complaint OP’s customer care center, informed the complainant to get service from one Imran authorized service person of Sony Company, accordingly the said service person visited the complainant house and examined the T.V. set and informed the defect found in it.  Further, he informed that the vertical black lines forming on the T.V. screen can be removed by bonding process for which, he needs to put the T.V in observation for one or two days hence, he took  the defective T.V to his service center and he agreed to repair the same for a cost of Rs.7,500/-.  Thus, complainant handed over the defective T.V set to the service person.  For which, the service person issued a job card under the name and style of M/s ITS Digital India Tech solution Bangalore.

        3.     After the lapse of few days the complainant contacted OPs service person over the phone and he asked about the T.V set,   the service person neither replied properly nor shown any inclination to return the T.V with proper condition  and he postpone the delivery date on one or other pretext.

4.     The Complainant was fed up with the attitude of the service person and same was brought to the notice of OP’s concern, though the problem has not been resolved till date hence no other option left for him except filing this complaint.  Hence this complaint.       

        5.   On perusal of the complaint and documents filed, it is observed that the documents produced before the Forum do not reveal the relationship of consumer and service provider it is also do not reveal privity of contract between the complainant and OP.

 6.    Upon service of notice, O.Ps have appeared before the Commission but has not filed version and not to adduced evidence.

7.   In order to substantiate their case, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and documents. Heard the arguments. The following points arise for our consideration:-

                 1) Whether the complainant has proved

                     deficiency in service on the part of the

                     O.P?

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

     the relief prayed for in the complaint?

                3)  Whether the complaint suffers from non

                    -joinder of the necessary party?

8.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT 1 and 2): On the result of point NO.1 

                           the point No.2 and  do not

                           survive For the following

POINT 3):           In the Affirmative

REASONS

9. POINT No.1:- On perusal of the complaint, evidence and documents placed by the complainant before this Commission, it makes us clear that the complainant purchased the T.V set from an authorized Sony Electronic dealer in the year 2011 with one year warranty.  The warranty period was completed in the year 2012.  The T.V set had not been given any trouble in its function during the warranty period and due to its satisfactory function complainant had not raised any grievance up to 2018.  It clearly go to show that the complainant enjoyed the programmes uninterruptedly on T.V screen till 2018.

10.  All of the sudden problems occurred in the T.V. set in April 2018 and started to form vertical black lines on the T.V.  Screen.  The said issue has arisen after the warranty period expires and that too after lapse of 7 years of its satisfactory function, which clearly indicates that the T.V. set do not have any manufacturing defect.  Further the complainant has not produced any documentary proof to show that the OP Company has obligation to provide service for the product as many as long years the product be used by the customers.  Further the principles of contract clearly says that when the contract to provide the service is not in existence the buyer cannot force the vendor to provide service to the product which he purchased years ago and void  claims of contract do not survive and even law also prohibits to entertain such an Act.  When the contractual terms do not allow the parties to enforce the contract none of the parties to the contract can seek redress for the same.  Under the circumstances it is improper to order for replacement of new T.V set in place of the defective one.  

11. Further it is also observed that the OP sent an e-mail to the complainant on 29/11/2019 wherein he explicitly stating that your model is around 8 years Old and it is very difficult to get parts.  Even if get the same the service may not be reliable.  This statement makes it clear that OP did not take responsibility of repairing an 8 years old T.V. 

12. Apart from the above discussion, even if we believe the statement of the complainant for a moment that he contacted the M/s Its Digital India Tech Solution Bangalore on the advice of OP’s customer care center which also does not have any stand under the law because mere giving advice does not caste burden on the shoulder of advisor unless he was a part of the conspiracy in the fraudulent transaction.  Hence the complainant has utterly failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of the OP consequently complainant is not eligible to seek relief against OP.  Hence we answer Point No.1 and 2 in NEGATIVE

13. POINT NO.3: Further, on making glance over the documents filed by the complainant, it makes clear that on the advice of OP’s customer care center the complainant contacted   with one Mr. Imran, service person of M/s ITS digital India tech solution Bangalore and also entered into a mutual oral agreement with him for providing service, in support of it, the complainant produced Annexure NO.1. which shows that the complainant made the entire financial transaction associated with hiring service from the aforesaid service person and after examination of defective T.V. the service person has brought   the defects in T.V to the notice of complainant and he took the T.V to his service center to remove the defects by Appling bonding process for which, complainant agreed to pay Rs. 7,500/- towards the cost of service as shown in the Annexure No.1. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the defective T.V. set to the service person.  After the lapse of few days the said service person neither replied nor returned the T.V. 

14. In view of the above, it is clear that all the transaction and costs associated with the repairing T.V are made with the service person of M/s ITS Digital India Tech solution Bangalore, who is not made as a party to the present complaint and he is necessary party to the present case for fair adjudication. 

15. Even after filing this complaint there was a sufficient opportunity to the complainant to bring the M/s ITS Digital India Tech solution Bangalore on record but the complainant has not come forward to implead him as a opposite party in the present complaint which makes clear that the complainant deliberately failed to do so, and created hindrance to extract truth from his mouth. Hence the complaint of the complainant suffers from non-joinder of necessary party.

16. Explanation for the necessary party and proper party for the suit or complaint reads as follows:

 “A necessary party is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court.  If a “necessary party” is not impleaded the suit itself is liable to be dismissed”

“ a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively a proper party is one in whose absence effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings”

16. In the present case M/s ITS Digital India Tech Solution Bangalore is not only a necessary party, but also a proper party to pass effective, complete and final order.  Hence we answer to the Point No.3 in AFFIRMATIVE.

       O R D E R

1) The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed without cost.

2) Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 26^th day of November 2020).

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

1) Sri. G.Sivaraj

Copies of documents produced on behalf of complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit: Nil

vln*