Date of Filing: 20.3.2019
Date of Judgment: 31.1.2022
Sri Ayan Sinha, Hon’ble Member
This is a complaint under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 made by Smt. Mallika Addy W/O Pankaj Addy, Residing At Flat No. 93, 93/7, Kalua Pal Para, Joka, P.S.- Thakurpukur, Kol-700104 against 1)Reliance Retail Limited, Ideal Regency, 46, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S.- Thakurpukur, Kol-700063, 2) Reliance Retail Limited, 3rd Floor, Court House Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002, 3) Reliance Retail Limited, Sankrail Industrial Park, Dhulagarh, Mouza Bhagabatipur, JL No. 7, Panchayat Kanuda, Pin Code-711313, Howrah, 4) Sony India Private Limited A-18, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi, South Delhi-110044 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps in delivering a defective TV and as such praying for a direction upon the O.Ps to repair in working condition or replace by the same model or refund the amount of TV i.e Rs. 1,01,899.41 along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
FACTS IN BRIEF:
The complainant purchased a Sony 50 FHD 3D SMART LED TV 50W 800d Television on 17.2.2017 at a total consideration of Rs. 1,01,899.41 from the O.P no.1 who is retailer and dealer of the products of Sony India i.e O.P no.4 and also the Franchise of Reliance Retail Shop i.e O.P no.2 and O.P no.3. The said TV already contained 1 year manufacturing guarantee and in addition complainant also availed an additional of 2 years extended guarantee, commencing from 17.2.2017 to 16.2.2020 and accordingly, the TV was installed at complainant’s house.
The said TV stopped working in June ,2018 for which the complainant called up the helpline number of O.P no.2 and thereafter O.P no.2 sent mechanics to the home of the complainant but they could not repair the defect for which the said TV set was taken by O.P no.2 at their workshop. After few days the TV was returned in working condition, but complainant observed that the software had been changed and loaded with several games as alleged by the complainant in his petition of complaint.
The said TV again stopped working for the second time in December, 2018 and the complainant called O.P no.2 for their service against which the O.P no.2 inspected and said that the TV suffered from liquid damage and the same cannot be repaired as it is paid service. As mentioned by the complainant the TV was installed at 4ft and there is no amp wall and moreover the said wall is in the inner side of the flat . So, there is no question of liquid damage and alleged that it might have caused during the custody of O.p no.2 where it was given for first time repair.
The complainant sent an e-mail to the O.P several times against which O.P stated that they shall be charging Rs. 9000/- approx to repair the same. Thereafter legal notice was also sent on 12.2.2019 to all the O.Ps requesting either to repair or replace the TV set against which O.P no.4 sent one reply on 20.2.2019 stating that the liquid damage is not under guarantee. Due to these sufferings from damages both mentally and financially, complainant filed this case alleging that the O.Ps have delivered a TV with manufacturing defects.
Notices were served upon all the O.Ps. O.P nos. 1, 2 and 3 contested this case by filing written version but the matter was heard exparte against O.P no.4 vide order dated 24.7.2019.
O.P nos. 2 & 3 in their written stating, inter alia, prayed for dismissal of this case for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties as “Reliance Retail Ltd.” was not mentioned in the cause title , for which complainant filed a Misc. Application praying for amendment in the cause title and the same was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 4.7.2019. O.P nos. 2 and 3 stated in their written version that the TV was booked by the complainant on 17.2.2017, delivered on 18.2.2017 and installation was done on 19.2.2017. But the guarantee availed by the complainant was for 1 year by O.P no.4 and 2 years by O.P no.2 .But as per terms and conditions the same warranty does not cover in case of liquid damage. It is also stated by O.P nos.2 and 3 in their written version that after the produced stopped working in June, 2018 , the same was repaired in working condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. But after 6 months i.e in December, 2018 when the same TV was not working the Service Engineer of O.P no.4. The Manufacturer inspected and found that the TV in dispute was damaged due to liquid ingression as the TV was kept at a place with full of dust and damage. It is also stated by O.P nos. 2 and 3 in their written version that the TV was kept in such a place where there were lot of cages of birds for which water was given to the birds, causing liquid ingression. O.P nos. 2 and 3 also alleged that complainant had not kept and used the TV in proper manner and the job sheet of the Service Engineer of O.P no.4 also says “No power”, “Liquid damage”. An estimate was given to the complainant as it is not under warranty for liquid damage, against which the complainant refused to pay. O.P no.2 also mentioned that they also observed that the TV was loaded with several games and denied all disputes and allegations against them and prayed for dismissal of this case with costs.
O.P no.1 also filed written version stating, inter alia, and agreeing to same submission as stated by O.P nos. 2 and 3 in their written version. In order to reiterate her case, complainant files Affidavit-in-Chief to which O.P nos. 1 to 3 files questionnaire. Complainant also filed reply against the questionnaire filed by O.P nos. 1 to 3. O.P nos. 1 to 3 by filing a petition prayed for treating the written version as their evidence. Complainant files questionnaire to which O.P nos. 1to 3 files Affidavit-in-reply. Both the respective Ld. Advocates for the complainant and O.P nos. 1 to 3 filed BNA.
MAIN POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there was any deficiency of services and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Point no. (i), (ii) & (iii):
On perusal of the documents filed therein, it is clear that the complainant had purchased one Sony 50FHD 3D Smart Led TV 50W 800d from Reliance Retail Ltd. For Rs. 1,01,889.41 on 18.2.2017 with warranty of 1 year by the manufacturer and 2 years extended warranty by O.P no.2 and the same is already admitted by O.P no.1 and O.P nos. 2 & 3 in their written version. As such there is no doubt that the complainant is a consumer.
Point no.(i) is answered accordingly.
We have perused the documents in record carefully and observed that the main crux of the case is that complainant bought a Sony TV for a consideration of Rs. 1,01,899.41 from O.P no.1 on 18.2.2017 with one year warranty of manufacturer and 2 years extended warranty from O.P no.2 and the TV started having problem first time on June, 2018 and it was repaired by O.P no.2. Later in December, 2018 it was again not working for which they TV was given for repairing and O.Ps demanded Rs.9000/- from the complainant as the liquid damage which their Engineer found is not covered under the extended warranty policy. On further perusal of the annexures we find that there is no doubt under other exclusions terms which is stated as “Does not cover physical, accidental or liquid damages”.
Now the main contention is that how can we be certain that there was liquid ingression for which the panel of LED has a liquid damage. The complainant has also not sought for any technical expert opinion’s report for manufacturing defects of the TV as alleged. It cannot be denied also that the service job sheet issued by the Authrosied Service Centre of Sony Dtd:NIL also mentioned as liquid damage. We find from the written version filed by the O.Ps that they fully relied upon this report. On careful scrutiny of said service job sheet we found that it has been filled up with a neglected approach towards a Consumer for the following reasons mentioned below:-
- Job Reservation No. & Dt. - NIL which should have been mentioned.
- Job No. & Dt - NIL which should have been mentioned
- Previous Job attended by - NIL
- The most important factor is that the service job sheet is being signed by the Receptionist dated 8.12.2018 and the O.Ps are claiming as Service Engineer’s Report. If that be so, the report should have been stamped and duly signed by the Service Engineer with detailed report but not a scrap of paper filed by the O.Ps with a complete report certified by their Service Engineer.
Furthermore, we also observed that the petitioner experienced similar problem with the TV Set in June, 2018 and again in December, 2018 i.e within 6 months from previous repairing. It is a clear pointer of the fact that the efficacy of previous repairing did not last long.
To aggravate the situation further, so called authorized service centers of LED TV Sets nowadays tend to replace the costly parts once the same developed defect upon expiring of warranty period or just shirk off their responsibility by saying liquid damage without any authenticated report and making liable the poor consumers who are buying products from their hard earned money with a hope to enjoy and share with their families for few moments from their busy schedule life.
Therefore, if a costly TV Set of Rs.1 Lac + cannot give trouble free service for at least 4 to 5 years since its purchase, no doubt, the economy is hit hard. With our strong observation, a bonafide consumer cannot be saddled with such recurring annoyance for no fault of him. We have also noted that the O.Ps have done no extra favour to the complainant by repairing the TV in June 2018 also, which was purchased in 18.2.2017. In this case the complainant had not been able to enjoy his costly TV set from December, 2018.
Since there was no authentic report of Service Engineer deputed by the O.Ps and just a mere report signed by the Receptionist stating liquid damage, we are in the opinion that the O.Ps have neglected the consumer and thus amounted to deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.
Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the O.Ps shall repair the TV set free of cost. Since the complainant has only used the TV for more than a year in working condition which has already covered the manufacturer’s warranty for 1 year and not being able to enjoy the warranty period of 2 years just because of the defects in TV, we notice it will be justified to issue fresh extended warranty of 2 years by O.P no.2 under Res Q Care Plan which was issued earlier and admitted by them in their WV only when the TV was purchased in 18.2.2017. If the O.Ps failed to repair the same, they should replace the TV Set with same model without charging extra.
The complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 25000/- which in our opinion is exaggerated. But at the same time, it cannot be denied the harassment and the loss suffered by the complainant for which he had to knock the door of this Commission and even with utmost despair she had pursued the case through her Ld. Advocate during the pandemic situation also. So, it would be just and proper if direction be given upon the O.Ps to pay of Rs. 40,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 15,000- , justice will be served.
In the result, the instant consumer complaint succeeds in part.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the C.C/186/2019 is allowed on contest against O.P nos. 1,2,3 & exparte against 4.
The O.Ps are directed to repair the Sony 50 FHD 3d Smart LED TV 50W800d (as mentioned in Reliance Retail Ltd. Invoice no. 008988104013 dated 17.2.2017) free of cost within 60 days from the date of this order with an extended warranty period of 2 years . If the O.Ps failed to repair the same within the aforesaid period, they are directed to replace the TV with same model immediately with a fresh warranty period of 1 years from Manufacturer and 2 years extended warranty from O.P no.2 as issued by them earlier.
O.Ps are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 15000/- to the complainant within the aforesaid period .
The transportation costs for the pick up and delivery of the repaired/replaced TV Set at complainant’s residence will be borne by the O.Ps along with free installation and demo.
The liabilities of the O.Ps are jointly and severally.
