DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………………..
Presents:
1. Sri P.Samantara, President.
2.Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated Bolangir the 19th day of February 2016.
C.C.No.78 of 2014.
Arun Kumar Singh Bhoi son of late Umesh Chandra Singh Bhoi.
At/P.O/P.S- Saintala, Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Raghunath Sahu, son of Nakula Sahu, Prop. Of Bapi Steel & Electronics,
At/P.O/P.S- Saintala, Dist- Bolangir.
2.Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office A-31, Mohan Co-operative,
Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
3.Sony India, Branch Office Eastern City Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No.A-5/1,
Unit-IX, Sachibalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar-751022.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant-Sri H.Tandi, & Associates.
Adv.for the O.P.No.1 - Sri B.S.Satpathy.
Adv.for the O.Ps 2 & 3 - Sri A.K.Das & Associates.
Date of filing of the case- 14.11.2014
Date of order -19.02.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
1. Succinctly put, the complainant purchased one sony LED TV, Model No.-KLV32R4024, Sl No-4319411 for a consideration of Rs 30,900/- against bill No.326 on dt.25.11.2013 with a warranty of one year from the date of purchase.
2. The complainant also averred from the date of purchase, the TV became non-functional and developed defects, the O.P in removal of defect that surfaced in the TV is callous and deferring in so many days citing various reasons, which is a misleading to the consumer and cheating not ensuring the defect within the warranty period. Such inaction on the part of the O.P is deficiency of service not abiding the warranty clause and promise of prompt service in purchase of a reputed brand. Praying order may be passed in refund of the entire cost of LED TV along with compensation and litigation expenses. Relied on original money receipt and warranty card and affidavit.
3. Pursuant to notice, M/S BAPI STEEL & ELECTRONICS, Saintala, appeared and filed the version admitting the purchase of LED SONY TV, Model No, date of purchase, consideration and period of warranty and contending the defect as raised by the complainant is due to panel glass below the front fiber glass breakage and which has been occurred due to jerkor thrash on the panel glass, which is a suppression of facts and malafidely alleging deficiency of service.
4. Further averred the warranty card’s terms and conditions provide that the company O.P.No.2 & 3 Sony India (P) Ltd, warrantees in repair of the product within the warranty period, but no where it guarantees replacement of TV.
5. Also added the condition 8 in warranty reads that the warranty clause shall not be apply to the damages, caused to the product by accident etc. The complainant ‘s defect in the TV is a possible case of accidental thrash or jerk on screen of TV, which broken the inside glass. So the company is not liable to repair or replace as per warranty card provision. This O.P has not misled the people or the complainant in any way. Prayed the case be dropped against this O.P holding him not liable for any payment for any deficiency of service caused by him. Relied on service job sheet and photo copy of TV set in lit.
6. In obedient to issued notice, the O.P.2 and 3 appeared and file the version contending the complaint as filed is vexatious, baseless and is more of an abuse of the process of law. The warranty on its product and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.
7. Also admitting the complainant’s purchase of product, model, consideration, date and warranty tenure. Further averring, if during the period of warranty, the product proves to be defective due to improper material on workmanship. Sony Service Centers/Authorized Service Centers will repair the product free of charge subject to the terms and conditions mentioned.
8. Further stating, the complainant has never contacted the authorized service centre. The service engineers inspect the LED TV and upon inspection, it was found that the LED TV had been damaged physically. Photographs evidencing the said physical damage say so. As per the warranty clause-8 same void on account of physical damage due to mishandling. The inherent problem as raised is misleading to the forum and rather the attempt by the complainant in a way of wrongful gains by way of this complaint. Praying in dismissal of the complaint in limine.
9. Heard both the counsels at length and perused the record with relevant materials in document.
10. Perusal record reveals, no dispute persists on the purchase LED Sony TV set, model, date of purchase, consideration and warranty thereto.
11. Subsequent question raised on the defect on the defect surfaced and same damage related to accidental or technical one.
12. It is admitted LED SONY TV, model No-KLV-32RE4024, serial No.4319411 has been sold by the authorized dealer BAPI STEEL & ELECTRONICS, Saintala. The TV set has been placed before this Forum and the defect found to be in inner panel and the TV is non-functional except the panel being lighted with crack ways casting from centre, for which the O.P.1 the authorized dealer leveled the defect has accidental and physical damage, may be due to Jerkor thrash from the external lend so the O.Ps are not liable for the claim that falling outside the scope of warranty and the liability strictly not in accordance with the terms and conditions that stipulated in the warranty declaration.
13. Whereas the petitioner advanced, the defect is an inherent manufactured & mal functioned one, which has surfaced due to the jerk like cracks running of electrical connection and persistent display. The service centre did not bother to render any service as expressed in warranty paper and in disregard of consumer rights against unfair trade practice and violation under warranty.
14. The defect raised on the LED TV set is electronics one and it needs electronics engineer report in substantiation. So in such a juncture, we find it is fair, proper and reasonable to depute engineers at both end. But we find the report of “SONY India (P) Ltd” is service job sheet dt.27.05.2014 and 28.07.2015 which is a managed one. As per the rule the service job sheet is not a report as same lacks scientific analytical information in confirmation of the defect as complained has happened/occurred due to some accidental or accidental damage. So such service job sheet has not any evidentiary value unless incorporate with the reasoned technical analysis rather a piece of paper defrauding others.
15. On the other hand the petitioner has also failed in submission of any analytical report on the complaint or the defect in the LED SONY TV as urged by the court, In absence of substantive material of evidence at both the end the case lacks the propensity to have a berth on merit. Thus ordered.
ORDER
The case has no merit so hereby same is dismissed.
The order passed on dt.18.11.2014 carries a penalty of Rs 500/- per day till disposal of the case, the O.Ps neither preferred appeal nor made any compliance, so the order is final in view of such non compliance of order, we hereby directed the O.Ps to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 2,30,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty thousand) only, on ( 450 days x 500) within thirty days of this order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum will carry on the same from the date of application till realization.
No order as to cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016.
( G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
