IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.182/2020
Felix Babu,
Ferns Land, Curzon Nagar-165,
Cutcherry Ward, Kollam 691 013.: Complainant
(By Adv.D.Baijukumar)
V/s
- M/s Sony India Pvt.Ltd.,
Regional Office, Second Floor,
Plot No.57, Crimpage Corporation,
Street No.17, Andheri East,
Mumbai 400 003.
- M/s QRS Retail Limited,
TWINS, Post Box No.35,
Residency Road,
Kollam 691 001
Rep.by its Managing Director:Opposite parties
- M/s Omkar Electronics,
Sony Authorised Service Centre,
MC/VII/514-413 A, Kadappakkada,
Kollam 691 008,
Rep.by its Proprietor
ORDER
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant for enjoying the programs telecasted by visual media, purchased a SONY television manufactured and marketed by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party on 22.08.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.57,900/-. The complainant preferred the TV manufactured by the 1st opposite party relying on their identity as the global manufacturer of high end electronic products and by expecting its outstanding performance in their colourful advertisements in both visual and print media. At the time of purchase either the 1st opposite party through their product manual or the 2nd opposite party did not inform the complainant that only a limited period after sales service will be available and that the spares will not be available after a particular period. The complainant by investing a huge amount for the purchase of the TV expected lifelong service support from 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
On 06.10.2019 the television purchased by the complainant became defective so he contacted the 2nd opposite party who provided the details of 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service personal of 1st opposite party in Kollam district. On intimating the defect, the technician from the 3rd opposite party visited the house of the complainant inspected the TV and informed that since the motherboard of the TV is damaged and it is to be replaced and that will
cost Rs.7,000/-. The complainant had invested a huge amount for the purchase of the TV he agreed to pay the required amount. Then the technician after collecting an amount of Rs.300/- as service charge left the place by promising that he is going to collect the required item from their god down. But thereafter 3rd opposite party did not contact the complainant or the defective part was not replaced by receiving payment. Thereafter complainant contacted the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and informed them about his grievance but no fruitful action from their part hence he caused to issue a letter on 19.10.2019 to which they assured that the required part will be made available from the 1st opposite party and requested for 3 days but no response thereafter. A reminder was also issued to which they have not responded. Opposite parties are liable to redress the grievance of their customer. But in the case of the complainant, they all had a deaf ear and behaved in a hostile manner to the complainant. Being the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party, the 3rd opposite party is also liable towards the customers but they after collecting an amount of Rs.300/- not cared to contact the complainant. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of all the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
Even after the acceptance of notice issued from this commission none of the opposite parties cared to appear before the commission hence they were set exparte. The complainant filed affidavit by a reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 to P4 . Ext.P1 is the retail invoice No.22-005482 dated 22.08.2010. Ext.P2 is cash receipt for Rs.300/- dated 11.10.2019. Ext.P3 is the registered letter dated 19.10.2019 issued to 3rd opposite party. Ext.P4 is registered letter issued to 2nd opposite party dated 05.12.2019.
Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records. The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 to P4 documents would establish that the complainant purchased a TV from the 2nd opposite party
based on the Ext.P1 retail invoice dated 22.08.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.57,900/-. The said TV was manufactured by the 1st opposite party which is mentioned in the complaint as well as in the affidavit it is clear from the available materials that the TV purchased from the complainant was not working from 06.10.2019 and it was duly intimated to 2nd opposite party who provided the details of 3rd opposite party, authorized service centre of 1st opposite party in Kollam district. However the relation between the opposite parties remain undisputed. It is true that as requested by the complainant the technician from the 3rd opposite party visited the house of the complainant, inspected the television and opined that motherboard is defective and left the home of the complainant by collecting an amount Rs.300/- as inspection fee after issuing Ext.P2 cash receipt. Since there was no response from the 3rd opposite party the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party but they did not cared to interfere. In the circumstances Ext.P3 notice was issued to them demanding their interference to which 2nd opposite party demanded for 3 days and even after expiry they did not care to redress the grievance of the complainant. According to the complainant in order to avoid legal proceedings he issued Ext.A4 reminder to the 2nd opposite party. But no response at all. It is brought out in evidence that the opposite parties are not consumer-friendly and they even do not care to appear before this commission on receipt of the notice. It is pertinent to note the allegations in the complaint that the complainant has purchased the TV by investing Rs.59,700/- expecting its durability and also on the after sales service. It is true that no consumer is expected to throw away the product he purchased within a short period on account
of lack of spares as it is the duty cast upon the manufacture to ensure its availability at least for a certain period which must be convinced to the purchaser.
It is also contended that none of the opposite parties had a case that the TV covered by Ext.P1 invoice will function for a particular period or that they will offer the after sale for a particular period alone. While considering the available evidence produced by the complainant we are of the view the manufacturer of a product shall convince his consumer about its durability or life time and also about the period upto which they will provide the after sales service. While considering the huge amount that had to spend by the complainant he is not expected to use the product purchase for a limited period or that its spares while not available after a particular period. It is clear from the available materials that the approach of the 3rd opposite party who are the authorized service personnel of the 1st opposite party is not consumer friendly. The complainant who happened to purchase the product manufactured by the 1st opposite party is supposed to contact the authorized service men for any repair and such persons is not expected to charge the customer without providing any service. In this case 3rd opposite party had collected money just for inspecting the defective item without making any provision for repair, they are again squeezed the complainant. In this case it can safely be concluded that the all the opposite parties acted against the liability upon them towards a consumer. In the said circumstances we are of the view that the opposite parties are liable to repair the TV of the complainant within a specific time limit or else to compensate him. It is clear from available materials that the complainant would come within the ambit of the consumer and there is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
In the result the complaint stands allowed with modification in the following terms.
- Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to repair the SONY brand Television belongs to the complaint within 45 days from the date of getting a copy of this order for which the complainant has to make available the TV as per the request of the opposite parties.
- Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for their deficiency in service.
- Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
- The opposite parties are directed to comply with above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which complainant is entitled to recover 30% of the invoice value of the TV set Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum except for costs from opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 31st day of December 2021.
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Retail invoice No.22-005482 dated 22.08.2010
Ext.P2 : Cash receipt for Rs.300/- dated 11.10.2019
Ext.P3 : The registered letter dated 19.10.2019 issued to 3rd opposite party
Ext.P4 : registered letter issued to 2nd opposite party dated 05.12.2019.
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
