SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the Opposite parties to pay price of T.V and to pay an amount of Rs. 50000/- as compensation and Rs. 25000/- as the cost of litigation for the deficiency in service in the part of opposite parties.
Complaint in Brief
According to the complaint, the first party had purchased a TV KDL-464X750(3DTV) 3256721 on 27/08/2012 which was manufactured by OP No.2 and from the shop run by OP No.1. The cost of TV was1,03,900/- and complainant paid 1,14,110/- in total for all the accessories along with TV. At the time of purchase, OP had assured all time service to first party. Unfortunately on the 3rd year of purchase of TV, it stopped it function and first party approached OP 1 and a technician examined the TV and reported the complaint of panel board of Sony TV and paid 400/- as service charge to the technician. Moreover according to the technician the panel board cost Rs.31500. AT that time complaint party couldn’t pay the same since it was huge amount. After this, again the TV shows complaint and the pictures started to blurr. So in the year 2018, July, technician of OP1 again visited Complaint party’s house and repeated the same version that the panel board was compliant and accepted Rs. 400 as service charge again. On 31/07/2018, Complainant paid Rs. 20000 as advance towards the cost of panel board as demanded by service engineer of OP and receipt was given for the same. After this the defect of the TV not cured because OP No.1 told that the panel board was out of stock and returned the advance amount to complainant. The defect of TV was not cured so far even if the complainant was ready to bear the cost. Hence this complaint
After filing this complaint the commission has sent notice to both Ops and both Ops are entered appearance and filed their version accordingly
Version of OP 1&2
The OP’s denied all the arguments except those specifically admitted here under. The purchase of TV by CP is admitted by OPs. The OPs says that at the time of purchase of TV, it was explained to complainant that the TV got limited warranty of one year subject to the terms and conditions. The OPs further says that after 4 years of purchase, CP approached OP No.1 with an issue of “double image and horizontal lines. OP No.1 provided service and it was detected as the complaint in Panel Board of TV. The expense towards the replacement was intimated and CP was refused to give the amount. At the time of raising issue, the warranty period was over. Thereafter on 17/07/2018 & 31/07/2018 CP visited OP No.1 with the similar issue raised in 12/11/2016. The CP was agreed to pay the cost of expense will incur due to the replacement of panel board. After 6 years of purchase, the model of the TV becomes old model and it was found difficult to find any replacement of Panel Board. At this juncture OP’s offered to exchange TV with new one at a discount of 25% MRP. Moreover, the Ops contended that as per the warranty clause 7 TV more than 5 year old the company will decline repair service…The Ops contended that the CP is intending to take undue advantage and there is no deficiency of service from the part of Ops. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
Due to the rival contentions the commission raised issues.
- Whether there is any deficiency in Service?
- Cost and Relief?
The commission called for the evidence from CP as well as Ops. The CP filed proof affidavit and documents marked as Ext. A1 to A7. The CP was examined as PW1. The Ops have no oral evidence or documentary evidence.
Issue No.1
The Ext. A1 is the Tax invoice dated 27/08/2012 which shows the purchase price as well as the showroom address of OP NO.1. Ext – A2 is the photo copy of Ext – A1. There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of TV and its price between Cp & OP. The Ext. A3 dated 27/08/2012 is the warranty card issued by manufacturer ie OP No.2 along with the TV. The issue of visual doubling ad horizontal lines arised on 10/11/2016 as per Ext. A4 ie the service job sheet issued by Op No.1’s authorized service centre. According to Ext – A3, warranty is provided for 1 year from the date of purchase ie from 27/08/2012 to 27/08/2013. AS per Ext. A3 complaint of TV arised in the year 2016 and the technician charged Rs.400 as service charge. Ext. A5 is the service job sheet dated 02/07/2018 issued by Sony Authorized Service centre to CP reveals the same defect. Exts. A6 service job sheet issued by Sony Authorized Service dated 31/07/2018 reveals the defect of the T V as double image on screen. Moreover the same job sheet it is seen that advance amount of Rs.20000 received on 31/07/2011 from CP and the said amount is refunded to the CP on 11/08/2018 the end of part supply. Both those statements are hand written on the Service Job Sheet dated 31/07/2018. Here the CP admits in his complaint that he had received the amount of Rs. 20000/- which he was remitted to OP No.1. So there is no dispute with regard to it. EX A7 is the photocopy of the receipt of Rs.20000 received by ‘Excellent’ Service Centre of Sony.
Hence in this case, Ops provided their Service to CP as and when the complaint arises even after the expiry of warranty period of said TV. But the question is the Ops are not curing the defect as stated in the service job sheet Ext.A4, A5 and A6. The OP’s are stating that 6 years old TV cannot be repaired due to the out of stock of its parts. More over OP’s contending that according to the warranty clause NO.7 they clearly stated that if the product is more than 5 year the OP”s have the right to decline repair Service. On the perusal of Warranty card there is no such clause as stated by OP’s. But it is stated in the service job sheet. Furthermore clause 10 of warranty card of OP No.2 reserves the right to replace the defective part with an equivalent and or reconditioned part. On the basis of this clause CP approach Ops to cure the defect as he stated in complaint as well as during the cross examination. But OP’s are negotiating with CP that to purchase another TV by exchange at the rate of 25% discount on MRP. According to the commission such a negotiation is not a fair trade practice since the CP purchased a TV worth Rs 1,03900/- and the service of TV can be enjoyed only up to 6 years. A mere statement in the Service job sheet about declining the service for the products having more than 5 years old will not take away the right of CP to get his TV cured. In strict sense, the deficiency in service from the part of OP’s extends only to the replacement of panel board. So issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of CP that defect of his TV get cured by providing panel board by OP’s. Hence the commission came into a conclusion that there is deficiency in service from the part of OP’s since OP’s have the obligation to repair the TV by provide spare part or otherwise the OP’s are directed to pay half of the purchase price o TV to CP on default.
Issue No.2
The CP is entitled to get compensation Since he suffered difficulty due to the deficiency in service. Even though CP was ready to pay the estimated cost by OP No.1, he waited until all these years to get the defect cured. Hence issue No.2 is answered in favour of CP that CP is entitled to get a compensation and cost as decided by commission
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The OP’s are jointly and severally directed to repair the TV without any delay at estimated cost pay by CP or otherwise the OP’s directed to pay half of the purchase price of TV that is Rs.51950 to the CP in fault. And also directed to CP that to return the TV to OPs when he received half of the purchase price as directed. And OP’s are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 7000 and Rs. 3000as cost of litigation to the CP within 30 days.
Exts.
A1 - Tax invoice dated 27/08/2012
A2 - photo copy of Tax bill Ext – A1
A3 - warranty card
A4 - The service job sheet dated 10/11/2016
A5 - job sheet dated 02/07/2018
A6 - job sheet 31/07/2018
A7 - Payment receipt dated 31/07/2018
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
Forward by order
Senior Superintendent
