Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/55/2015

M/s.Sabitha.V - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sony India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  27.01.2015

                                                                        Date of Order :  27.09.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO. 55 /2015

TUESDAY THIS  27^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER  2016

 

Mrs. V. Sabitha,

5-D, II Block,

City Square Apartments,

4/262, Khandhanchavadi, OMR,

Chennai 600 096.                                         .. Complainant

 

                                      ..Vs..

1.  The Managing Director,

Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

Registered Office,

A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, New Dehi 110 044.

 

2. The Manager,

Sony Center,

Saras Multiplex,

Plot Nos. 13 & 14, Ramagiri Layout,

Velachery – Taramani Road,

Chennai 600 042.                                                  ..Opposite parties 

 

 

For the Complainant           :    Party in person.   

For the opposite parties      :    M/s. J.P. Karunakaran & another

 

        Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties to replace the defective T.V  with new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II     

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

            The  complainant submit that he had purchased a Sony Bravia KDL 32W600A TV on 9^th October 2013 for a sum of Rs.37,500/-.  She had complained that there was no auto, video, and designs in display penal fault, it was a manufacturing defect.    Despite of several demands made by the complainant through mail with the opposite parties and responded by the opposite party stating that the request for Job sheet No.J4063611 was received on 29.3.2014 after expiry of six months.   It was reported by the opposite party that during inspection they found the display penal needs to be replaced.  As per the warranty “ in one year period they will replace the defective parts not the entire set.”   The complainant further states that since the above mentioned T.V. was under warranty the opposite parties were agreed to repair the said T.V. and asked the complainant to give the product to get it repair the faulty display penal.   The complainant  expressed that she is not interested to have service demanded replacement of a  new T.V. set.  It is stated that within the period of five months the T.V. sets gave problem in the penal which will affect the other parts of the T.V. hence the complainant is not interested in repairing the T.V. and sought for the replacement.    The opposite party adhering to the warranty condition, informed they will repair the set but cannot to replace the T.V.  Hence the complainant had sought for the replacement of defective T.V  with new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

Written version of  opposite parties are in  briefly as follows:-

2.     The opposite parties deny all the averments and allegations contained in the complaint, except those that are specifically admitted herein.    As per the terms of warranty provided by opposite parties to the complainant clearly states the following:-

“Subject to the conditions of this Limited Warranty, Sony warrants this product to be free from defects in design, material and workmanship at the time of original purchase by a Consumer, and for a subsequent period of one year which is the warranty period”…

If, during the warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service due to defects in materials or workmanship, the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein.

The opposite party further submit that the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party authorized service centre on 29.3.2014 after using the said T.V. set for around six months, with the complaint that there were white patches on the screen.   The said T.V. set was inspected by the service engineer of the opposite party-1 and the panel of the said T.V. set was found faulty and the same was needed to be replaced.    Since the TV was within the warranty period the same has to be repaired for free of cost, however the complainant did not permit the service engineer to replace the faulty panel and demanded for replacement of the said T.V.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of Opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked on the side of the  opposite parties. 

 

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

5.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6  were marked on the side of the complainant.  Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5  were marked on the side of  opposite parties and also considered the both side arguments.

6.     The complainant had purchased a Sony Bravia KDL 32W600A TV on 9^th October 2013 for Rs.37,500/-.   She had complained that there was no auto, video, and designs in display penal and found shake line on screen which was a manufacturing defect.    The complainant made several communications with the opposite parties vide Ex.A2, and responded by the opposite party stating that the request for Job No.J4063611 was received on 29.3.2014 after expiry of six months.   It was reported by the opposite party that during inspection they found the display penal needs to be replaced.  As per the warranty, in one year period they will replace the defective parts not the entire set.   The warranty condition No.10 under Ex.A7 states that “Sony reserves the right to replace to defective parts with and / or reconditioned part”.   Since the above mentioned T.V. was under warranty the opposite parties were agreed to repair the said T.V. and asked the complainant to repair the faulty display penal.   On the contrary the complainant  expressed that she is not interested in getting it serviced by opposite party but sought replacement of new T.V.   It was stated within a period of five months the T.V. sets gave problem in the penal which will affect the other parts also, hence the complainant was not interested in repairing the T.V. and sought for the replacement.    The opposite party adhering to the warranty condition expressed they will repair the T.V. set but cannot replace the T.V.  Hence the complainant filed his complaint seeking the replacement of new T.V. and claiming Rs.45,000/- as compensation.

7.     The opposite parties in their written version and proof affidavit denied the allegations and averments put forth by the complainant and states the terms of warranty provided by Sony India reads “ Subject to the conditions of this Limited warranty, Sony warrants this product to be free from defects in design, material and workmanship at the time of original purchase by a consumer and for a subsequent period of one year, which was a warranty period.   If during the warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in material or workmanship the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein”.   It  is contented that  the opposite parties state on inspection, they found the white spaces on the screen.  Since the said T.V. was within the warranty period it was conveyed they will repair and replace the defective  parts.   Since the complainant was insisting very much on the replacement of the new T.V., it is the sole discretion of the opposite parties to provide or exchange the T.V. and therefore the present complaint made by the complainant seems to be a harassment to the opposite parties hence they denied the replacement and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

8.     In addition the complainant submitted an article dated June 2014 describing how long will your LCD / LED TV last which states that :

Most LCD/ Palasma TVS last for the few year before problems such as loss of color, brightness, black spots begin  to show.  The life  expectancy of an LCD / LED TV can be between 4 to 10 years depending on usage and maintenance as well as other factors,  as such as type, brand, location and environment.  In general the life expectancy of an LCD or LED TV is few years after the expiration of the warranty. 

9.     In addition the complainant filed how long do LCD /LED TVs lost?  “Flat-penal LCD  TVs have life span newly approaching 1,00,000 hours on  average.  In addition to be stated the CCFL backlight in the penal last up to 20 months (15,000 hrs) while the LCD glass itself lasts almost 6 years (50,000 hrs).    In this context the complainant states that the said T.V. purchased by her had a problem, a penal within a period for 5 month since needs a replacement of a new T.V.

10.    Perused on the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents, citations filed by the complainant and the opposite parties on hearing the oral arguments of both sides of the dispute we found that there is no dispute on the life span between 4 to 10 years depending on  usage other factors locations and environment and the flat penal LCD T.V have a life span of 1,00,000 and CCFL back light in the penal last upto 20 months i.e. 50,000 hours and LCD glass lasts almost 6 years ie. 50,000 hours.   The warranty stipulates one year free of service with replacement of the defective parts and repair with free of cost and no provision for replacement of  a new product / new T.V. set.    

11.    However the citation referred in support of the opposite parties  contention i.e.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

IN R.P.No.943 and 1398 of 1996

Punjab Tractors Ltd.

..Vs..

Vir Pratap

 

The technical expert opinion which should bring the inherent manufacturing defects.

12.    In this compliant, the complainant failed to substantiate with a technical expert opinion stating that the defects in the T.V. is due to in manufacturing with the technical experts report.  The opposite party never denied to get the T.V. to be repaired.  But the complainant is not willing to get it repair the defects found in the product can be repaired and rectified whereby we direct the complainant to get it repair and the replacement of a new product will not be accepted. Since it is against the terms of warranty and having used for six months it is not fair on the part of complainant to seek replacement.  Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to do repair of the complaint mentioned T.V. in a workable condition, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost  to the complainant.   Accordingly the points 1 & 2 are answered. 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties jointly and severally directed to do repair of the complaint mentioned T.V. in a workable condition, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

               Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  27^h   day  of  September  2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  9.10.2013 - Copy of purchase bill issued  by the opposite party.

Ex.A2- 22.4.2012 - Copy of the letter from Sony India Pvt. Ltd., 

Ex.A3- 1.5.2014    - Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite

                             parties.

Ex.A4- 1.5.2014    - Copy of letter from Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

Ex.A5- 17.7.2014  - Copy of letter send by the complainant to opposite parties.

Ex.A6- 17.7.2014  - Copy of refused register sent to Sony Centre, Chennai.

 

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:- 

 

Ex.B1- 4.7.2011    - Copy of Board Resolution.

Ex.B2-         -       - Copy of Warranty terms.

Ex.B3- 22.4.2014  - Copy of letter of opposite party to complainant.

Ex.B4- 1.5.2014    - Copy of letter of opposite party to complainant.

Ex.B5- 12.9.2014  - Copy of letter of opposite party to complainant.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.