Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/79/2015

K.Fazlur Rahman - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sony India South - Opp.Party(s)

Md.Ashfaq Rafi, H.Md.Ghouse

06 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  31.03.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  06.07.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 06^th   DAY OF JULY 2017

 

C.C.NO.79/2015

 

K.Fazlur Rahman,

Son of late Md.Kassim,

106/158A, Adam Street,

Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013.

 

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. M/s.Sony Corporation,

1/7/1 Konan, Minoto/KU,

Tokyo 1080075, Japan.

 

2. M/s Sony India (P) Ltd.,

A31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathane Road,

New Delhi 110 044.

 

3. M/s.Sony india South,

Hameediya Centre 2^nd Floor,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

 

4. M/s.Eswari Enterprises,

88A, 6^th Avenue,

Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083.

5. M/s Clarity Services,

Block AA9, 2^nd Avenue,

Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 20.05.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s Md. Ashfag Rafi, H.Md.Ghouse

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : J.P.Karunakaran, Inthu Karunakaran

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to order directly the Opposite Parties to replace the TV with new unit and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a Sony product keeping in mind of it being a defect free and worldwide service, hence a Sony TV model 32Bx350 Serial No.1-3055698 - M was purchased on 01.06.2012 at Lulu Saudi Hyper Market, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia with international warranty for UAE Dirhams 1376/- equivalent to Rs.23392/- (1376 X 17). Within a year, the TV commenced malfunctioning and the same  was rectified by the 4^th Opposite Party on 23.04.2012. This rectification is the root cause for subsequent symptoms. The Complainant was put to mental pain that the world renowned product did not last even for a year. The TV developed snag on 16.09.2014 (The Complaint No.20980171) that is within 6 months of earlier repair, due to deficiency in erstwhile service provided by the 4^th Opposite Party. The Complainant had to shed Rs.5568/- under work order No.J$2158568 dated 01.10.2014 by the 5^th Opposite Party. The Complainant was assured that there is 3 months warranty for all the parts and service.

          2. The Complainant is deprived of his utilizing of the TV which he is entitled to, due to negligence committed by all the Opposite Parties and deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties 3 to 5. The Complainant’s TV is not functioning since 06.12.2014. A Complaint No.22748003 dated 06.12.2014 and another Complaint No.22784276 dated 08.12.2014 were lodged but no action  was taken, instead the 5^th Opposite Party is demanding Rs.12,000/-. The TV is now dead only due to the improper diagnosis done by the 4^th and 5^th Opposite Parties.  The Complainant is supplied with a defective TV unit with manufacturing defect hence it is consistently breaking down. If a defect occurs within the warranty period then it should be only due to a manufacturing defect. The Complainant sent notices to the Opposite Parties dated 11.12.2014. A reply dated 31.01.2015 is issued on behalf of the all the Opposite Parties with frivolous contentions. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to order directly the Opposite Parties to replace the TV with new unit and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 TO 5 IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party is parent Company of the 2nd Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties 3 to 5 are the authorized service centre of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The product of the 2^nd Opposite Party sold its customer through a network of its authorized dealers and after the sales; services on those products are provided through their authorized service centres. The Complainant purchased Sony Television from Saudi Arabia on 01.06.2012 by the retailer after satisfying himself with the condition of the product. The 2^nd Opposite Party provided one year warranty with terms and conditions.

          4. After enjoying the TV for a period of almost 10 months, the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party service centre for the first time on 24.04.2013 with an issue of no power. After inspection it was found BAQ Board was defective and the same was replaced during the warranty period. Thereafter the Complainant used the TV for 17 months without any defect and for the second time on 22.09.2014, he had Complained that no power and the static converted was  found defective which was replaced on chargeable basis as the same was beyond the warranty period. Again on 23.12.2014 with a Complaint of double image and on inspection found panel was defective needs replacement. The Complainant refused to carryout repairs on payment of necessary charges and he wanted to be rectified on free of cost.  Thereafter the Complainant issued legal notice dated 11.12.2014 and the same was replied by a reply dated 31.01.2015 by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the first Opposite Party is the parent Company of the 2^nd Opposite Party and the Opposite Parties 3 to 5 are the authorized service centers of the 2^nd Opposite Party  and  they were dealing with the products of the Sony Company including the Sony TV  and the Complainant purchased a Sony TV on 01.06.2012 at Lulu Saudi Hyper Market, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia with international warranty for UAE Dirhams 1376/- equalent to Rs.23,392/-  and the warranty card issued for the period of one year is marked as Ex.A1  and after using the products for 10 months  on the very first time on 23.04.2013, the Complainant  made Complaint with issue of no power during the period of warranty is in force and hence the defect was rectified  under Ex.A2  on free of cost basis replacing the necessary spares and thereafter again on 22.09.2014  after seven months  again made Complaint of no power and for the said defect was rectified by charging a sum of Rs.5,568/-  by the 5^th Opposite Party under Ex.A3  cash bill and in the said bill 3 months warranty for parts and service  was given .

          7. The Complainant contended again for the 3^rd time on 23.12.2014 with the Complaint of double image and after inspection  the service people informed that the  panel is defective  and the same  could be carried out with necessary charges  and for which the Complainant refused and demanded to repair at free of cost.  Admittedly during warranty period the repair was done freely under Ex.A2. On 23.12.2014 there is no warranty in force. Hence the service centre demanded charge to rectify the defect as paid by him under Ex.A3. However, the Complainant relies that the endorsement made in “3 months warranty for parts  & service “  provides that from 01.10.2014 for three months warranty for parts and service was given and therefore the Complainant is entitled for free service and replacement of parts for the defect Complained on 23.12.2014.

8. Either in the Complaint or in the proof affidavit, the Complainant had not stated what kind of spare parts has been changed by the Opposite Party as per Ex.A3. The three months period warranty mentioned in Ex.A3 is applicable only for those parts were replaced as per Ex.A3.  To avail the three months warranty he has to specifically plead the name of the replaced spare parts as per Ex.A3 and such spare parts only became defective again. However, the Complainant had not stated in the Complaint that the replaced spare parts only became defective. Therefore in such circumstances, it is taken that the problem arisen for the third time not in respect of the replaced spare parts in the Ex.A3 and it is something new that the panel become defect. Hence, the warranty for three months stated in a Ex.A3  cannot be benefited by the Complainant and hence the Complainant had not established the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and therefore we hold that Opposite Parties 1 to 5 have not committed deficiency in service.

09. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 06^th day of July 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 01.06.2012                   Warranty card

Ex.A2 dated 23.04.2013                   Work Order

Ex.A3 dated 01.10.2014                   Work Order

Ex.A4 dated 11.12.2014                   Legal Notice

Ex.A5 dated 31.01.2015                   Reply by Opposite Parties

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated 04.07.2011                   Resolution passes by the board of directors of

                                                   Sony Private Limited

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Warranty Card

 

Ex.B3 dated 11.12.2014                   Complainant’s legal notice dated on 11.12.14

                                                    issued to the opposite parties

 

Ex.B4 dated 31.01.2015                   Reply of Sony India Private Limited

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT