DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.213 of 2014

       Sri Anil Singh Chauhan,

       R/o 5/6, Vikas Khand,

       Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                 1. Sony India,

                    A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

                    Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

                   Phone No.011-66006600

                   Fax No.011-26959141

                   Tollfree: 1800-103-7799

                   Email: onyindia.care@ap.sony.com

                                                                                                                          2. Karawan,

                     Sony Shop, Arar,

                   Saudi Arabia.

                   Phone- 966146623355.                                                                                                                               .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for replacement of defective part in TV or to replace the TV with new one and for payment of financial charges of Rs.10,000.00

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that he purchased Sony TV from OP No.2 on 14.03.2013. The TV was functioning well in India but suddenly nothing was coming on screen which was explained to OP No.1 during October, 2013 alonwith submitting international warranty card and scanned copies of bills. Thereafter, OP No.1 directed the subject to Sony Lucknow Service centre through job No.-j40158848 and subsequently 3 visits by Sony India’s representative took place

-2-

for obtaining different details like TV’s photo, warranty card and bill’s copies etc. Again a complaint was lodged to know the unclear closure comment on the generated job but no action was taken despite many complaints made through email. On phone Sony India is saying that the issue has been discussed from where this item has been purchased and they are saying it is not in warranty and item for replacement may be ordered on payment by the Complainant. The item was purchased with international one year warranty on 14.03.2013 which shall expire on 13.03.2014. The Sony’s Management has declined for product change or repair, hence this complaint.

          The OP No.1 has filed the reply wherein it is mainly submitted that the OP No.1 is a reputed Company and the complaint filed against the OPs is baseless and therefore it is liable to be dismissed. The Complainant had purchased the LCD from OP No.2 in Saudi Arabia and for a period of 10 months there was no problem in the LCD. When the Complainant approached the authorised service centre of OP on 21.01.2014 within the alleged warranty period, complaining of power problem in the LCD, then it was found that a component of the LCD needed to be changed but as it was not available, hence instructions issued for arranging the same from valid sources. The Complainant was informed about the proper approval for free of cost repairs of LCD as it was purchased over-seas. As the warranty papers and sale invoice did not bear any dealer’s stamp on it, hence the Complainant was asked to produce genuine and authentic warranty card and purchase invoice which the Complainant failed to produce, hence the Complainant was asked to pay for the repairs but the Complainant refused to pay. The Complainant also produced two different sets of warranty documents and invoices on two different occasions, hence the whole conduct of Complainant smacks of malafide. The OP No.1 provides limited liability in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty.

-3-

There was no manufacturing defect in the LCD. If the alleged defect existing in the LCD of the Complainant can be repaired or rectified by replacing its necessary spare parts then in such a case the answering OP cannot be forced to replace the LCD with a new one. The defect in the LCD has not arisen due to any improper material and workmanship, hence the question of free of cost repairs or replacement does not arise. The OP has not been deficient in providing services and therefore this complaint against the answering OP is liable to be dismissed.

          Notice was issued to the OP No.2 but none appeared, hence the case proceeded exparte against OP No.2 vide orders passed on 24.07.2014.

          The Complainant has filed replication to the WS of OP No.1.

          The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 1 annexure and 9 papers with the complaint. The OP No.1 has filed the affidavit of Meena Bose, Authorized representative, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and 2 annexure with the WS.

          Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

          Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant’s Sony TV became defective within the period of warranty and when it was taken to the OP No.1 for repairs, then they were not ready to repair it free of cost and hence the OPs have committed unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service or not and if so its consequences.

          The OP No.1 has taken the stand that the Complainant was not having legitimitate documents of warranty card and sale invoice and therefore they refused to repair the TV free of cost as according to them the warranty papers and sale invoice produced by the Complainant did not bear any dealer’s stamp on it. But in this regard, the Complainant has produced not only the sale invoice but also the warranty card where dealer’s stamp is properly affixed as is evident from the photocopy of the dealer’s invoice and the warranty card. The Complainant

-4-

has also filed an affidavit proving the contents of the complaint and he has also filed a copy of the letter received from the dealer Al Faisaliah Group proving the purchase and the warranty card through its letter dated 05.09.2014 which is filed as annexure A with the replication by the Complainant. From all these documents, it is abundantly clear that the Complainant has produced valid documents with regard to the sale of the LCD as also the warranty card. It is also clear that it is within the period of warranty that the LCD became defective, therefore when the complaint was made by the Complainant for repair of the defective set during the period of the warranty then the OP No.1 should not have asked for any charges to be paid for the repairs as the LCD was within the warranty period, therefore the OP No.1 has committed unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to get the defective set repaired by the OP No.1 free of cost. It is also evident that the Complainant has been much harassed in this case, therefore he is also entitled to compensation as also cost of the litigation. Since the OP No.2 is merely the dealer of the set, therefore he is not responsible for any defects in the TV set for which only the OP No.1 is responsible.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OP No.1is directed to repair the TV set of the Complainant free of cost.

The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.                  

          (Anju Awasthy)                                (Vijai Varma)

                 Member                                                  President

Dated:       4 June, 2015