Delhi

North East

CC/68/2020

Yogesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 68/20

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Yogesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, R/o Flat No. 35-D, Pocket B, DDA Flats, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi 110032		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-18, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044   Immortal Innovation Services Pvt. Ltd., (Sony Authorized Service Center) B-20/21, 1st Floor Opposite Metro Pillar No. 80, Near Krishna Nagar Metro Station Delhi 110051		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		04.12.2020 30.10.2023 20.02.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Parties which are Sony India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Opposite Party No. 1 and Immortal Innovation Services Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Opposite Party  No. 2.

Case of the Complainant

1. Brief facts as per the complaint are that on 14.01.2014, the Complainant had purchased a Sony LED TV model no. KDL-42W850A from Croma Store, Karol Bagh for a sum of Rs. 84,900/- with additional extended warranty for 02 years. As per the Complainant, the said TV was working well but on 14.04.2019, the some problems started in said LED TV and on 15.04.2019, Complainant registered a complaint with Opposite Party No. 1. It is stated that after two days, representatives  of Opposite Party No. 2 visited the house of the Complainant and ask the Complainant to pay Rs. 236/- before checking the said LED TV. Complainant paid the said amount. It is his case that the said LED TV was repaired by the technicians of the Opposite Party No. 2 for which the Complainant paid Rs. 1,062/- and they gave 15 days warranty. On 06.09.2020 Complainant again started facing the same problem and he contacted with the Opposite Party No. 1 and they registered the complaint. Thereafter, on 15.09.2020 one technician visited the house of the Complainant and checked the said LED TV and informed the Complainant that they would repair the said TV but Complainant would have to leave the said LED TV to the service centre i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 and collected Rs. 236/- from the Complainant. On the same day, Complainant left the said TV with the Opposite Party No. 2. The Complainant was allegedly informed by Opposite Party No. 2 that they would repair the said TV and if it could not be repaired, then, they would change the hardware parts of the said TV. On 17.09.2020, the Complainant received a call from the Opposite Party No. 2 and was told that some parts would be changed and the price of the parts was Rs. 16,596/- and Complainant was asked to pay Rs. 1,000/- in advance. Accordingly, the Complainant paid Rs 1,000/- in advance and informed that the repair will take a week’s time. On 03.10.2020, Complainant received a call from the Opposite Party No. 2 and was told that the said LED TV parts were not available and offered the Complainant to buy another LED for Rs. 27,960/- model no. KDL-43W6600 and Complainant refused to accept the offer. On the same day, Opposite Party No. 2 returned the said LED TV to the Complainant after receiving an amount of Rs. 266/-. After that Complainant found the said LED TV was not intact from back side and 14-15 screw were missed while according to job sheet, only 05 screw were missed and Complainant tried to switch on the said LED TV but could not do so. It is his case that said LED TV set was rendered dead while at the time of handing over, there was only restarting problem. On 03.10.2020, Complainant again registered a complaint with Opposite Party No. 2 but till today no reply has been received. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has filed the present complaint praying for directions the Opposite Parties either to provide the same model or refund the amount of Rs. 84,900/-. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment, Rs. 2,354/- which were paid by the Complainant and   Rs. 31,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed their joint written statement, taking preliminary objection inter alia that the present complaint pertains to subject TV, purchased by the Complainant 6 year back and has been enjoyed without facing any difficulties. It is also submitted that whenever the Complainant approached the Opposite Party with his grievances as to the set, subject set was repaired adequately and to the satisfaction of the Complainant. On merits, it has been contended that when the Complainant again approached the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party accepted to repair the same, even though warranty period of the said set had already expired but on further inspection, the subject set was found to have been tampered from outside the authorised service network. It is submitted that as per the clause 8 of Repair terms and conditions, the Opposite Party reserves the right to decline the repair services to products which are more than 5 years old or products which are tempered by someone outside the organisation of Opposite Party No. 1. Despite that, Opposite Party did not decline to repair and due to non-availability of spare parts required as the set was old, the Opposite Party offered the Complainant a brand new LED TV with same specifications at a discounted price which was rejected by the Complainant.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties, wherein the Complainant has denied the objection raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant, in support of his complaint, filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Parties filed affidavit of Ms. Meena Bose, wherein she has supported the case of the Opposite Parties as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
7. Admittedly, the Complainant bought a Sony LED TV set from Opposite Party for Rs. 84,900/- in the year 2014 and it started developing technical snag in 2019. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for repairs, initially, it was repaired but after a while, when the Complainant again faced the problem, the Opposite Party allegedly did not rectify the defect in the set and declined the repair on the premise that spare parts required for repairs are not available.
8. On the other hand, the Opposite Party contends is that even though warranty period of the said set had already expired, they accepted to repair the same, but on further inspection, the subject set was found to have been tampered from outside the authorised service network. The Opposite Party also contends that as per the clause 8 of Repair terms and conditions, the Opposite Party reserves the right to decline the repair services to products which are more than 5 years old or products which are tempered by someone outside the organisation of Opposite Party No. 1. Despite that, Opposite Party did not decline to repair and due to non-availability of spare parts required as the set was old, the Opposite Party offered the Complainant a brand new LED TV with same specifications at a discounted price which was rejected by the Complainant.
9. Opposite Party claims that subject TV developed problems after 6 years of purchase and it was well out of warranty period and in such case Opposite Party company reserves right to decline repairs of the sets more than 5 years old. The Opposite Party also contends that the despite that fact, they offered to repair but could not successfully do so as the requisite parts were not available. Hence, they offered another TV on discounted price which was not accepted by the Complainant.
10. The perusal of the material on record and the pleadings shows that the Opposite Parties were unable to repair the subject TV due to non-availability of part required. The Opposite Party contends to have offered new TV of same specification on discounted price of Rs. 27,960/- which was admittedly declined by the Complainant.
11. Now the question for consideration is as to whether the Opposite Party was deficient in services by declining the repairs on the ground of non-availability of required part of subject model as the model was old. Whether the manufacturing company can be held justified in declining the repairs on the ground of non-availability of the spare parts for the models just after a period of five years.
12. It is not out of context here to say that when any consumer purchases any expensive item, he definitely intends to enjoy it for a certain reasonable time and five years’ time period is very short period for him. If the option of repairs is ruled out for the consumer due to discontinuing of the spare parts by the manufacturing company, it is as good as forcing the consumer to go for new product even if he is not at all willing to change the model so frequently to avoid unnecessary expenses. In our considered view, discontinuing the spare parts within unreasonably short time of five years amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of manufacturing companies.
13. In the case in hand, the Opposite Party company could not repair the subject set due to non-availability of required part and offered another model to the Complainant on discounted price of Rs. 27,960/- and the Complainant was not willing to take the offer.
14. In such scenario, in our considered view, the inability of the Opposite Party company to repair the subject set due to non-availability of spare parts amounts to deficiency in services and non-availability of/discontinuing the spare parts with unreasonably short span of five years amounts to unfair trade practices on the part of the Opposite Party company.
15. It is to be noted that the Complainant had enjoyed the product in question for 6 years without there being any problem which rules out any manufacturing defect, thus, his request for replacement or refund is disallowed. However, he is entitled to be compensated.
16. Thus, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs. 35,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till its recovery.
17. Order announced on 20.02.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)    Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President