SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Unfair trade practice in respect of non-replacement of defective TV set are the allegation arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant being the Secretary of Union Club,Kendrapara purchased a Sony Led Model KLV-32-R412B bearing Serial No. 3278630 on dtd.23.07.2014 from OP No.2 dealer by paying an amount of Rs.31,000/. In support of the purchase OP No.2 granted tax invoice No.696 and issued warranty card in favour of the complainant, which is valid for one year from the date of purchase. It is alleged that during warranty period the TV set started malfunctioning and went dead on May,2015. The fact of malfunctioning was reported to Ops over telephone, there after, OP No.2 accompanied by a mechanic of Sony service center,Cuttack attended and inspected the T.V. set and replaced some components but the alleged TV set remained dead. On further complaint, again the mechanic of the service center came, replaced the entire components, but the TV set did not function and opined that there was some major defects which could not be detected by them. Complainant reported the matter to the Ops over telephone accordingly on dtd. 06.06.2015 the service station official of OP No.1 along with OP No.2 took the TV for replacement and granted a receipt on this respect on the same date. When the TV set was not returned the complainant served an advocate’s notice on dtd.09.06.2015 to both the Ops, but the Ops remained silent which according to complainant is unfair trade practice adopted by the Ops by not replacing the TV set and by violating the terms and conditions of the warranty. The cause of action of the instant dispute arose on dtd.23.07.2014 when the TV was purchased. The complaint is filed before this Forum with prayer for seeking a direction of this Forum to Ops to replace a new TV of same model with warranty from the date of replacement or to refund the purchase price of Rs.31,000/- with 12 per cent interest per annum. It is further prayed that a compensation amount of Rs.100/- per day be paid from dtd.23.07.2014 till the date of replacement along with cost of litigation.
3. Being noticed Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written version to the dispute and submitting the facts, it is averred that OP No.1 is a National repute TV and Electronic Manufacturing Company and OP No.1 strictly adhere the terms and conditions of the warranty which are reflected Annexure R-3. It is also averred that complainant purchased a Sony Bravia TV bearing from OP No.2. Complainant registered a complaint with OP No.1 dtd.28.05.2015 after using the TV set for 10 months. On response to the complaint, a Service Engineer was deputed by OP No.1 to attend the complaint and found that B board of the TV set was defective and same was replaced and the service engineer requested to take the TV set to authorized service centre, so that the necessary repairs could be conducted. It is further averred that as the warranty period exists the repair of the TV was conducted on free of costs, but complainant being adamant in nature are not taking the repair TV set, on the other hand served a legal notice to the Ops. On reply to the said legal notice OP No.1 issued a letter on dtd.30.06.,2015, copy of the letter is filed and marked as Annexure R-4.As per the warranty the answering Ops have the sole discretion to repairs or to exchange the TV set. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Ops have not committed any unfair trade practice and to tarnish the image of the OP-Company the complainant has foisted a false case to harass OP No.1-Company and to make wrongful monetary gains. Accordingly the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties, perused the annexures filed into the case. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant on dtd.23.07.2014 purchased one Sony Bravia,TV bearing Model No.KLV-32R412B from OP No.2. It is also admitted that during warranty period of one year of the TV on complaint of defects the TV set was repaired by the service engineer of OP No.1. It is further admitted that till-date the TV set is in possession of the Ops.
The complainant alleges that after purchase of TV set on dtd.23.07.2014 the said TV set started malfunctioning and went dead on May,2015. On telephonic complaint the officials of Ops though repaired and replaced the components, but the TV set did not run normally for which service officials of Ops took the TV on dtd.06.06.2015 for its replacement. Complainant alleging unfair trade practice seeks direction of this Forum to Ops to replace the new TV of same model otherwise to pay the cost of the TV amounting of Rs.31,000/- with 12 per cent interest per annum till the realization along with cost and compensation. On the other hand, it is countered by the Ops that they received the first complaint on dtd. 28.05.2015 and the service engineer of OP No.1 attended the complaint replaced the ‘B’ Board and took the TV set to authorized service station for further repairing,though the TV set has been repaired the complainant is not taking the delivery of the said TV set in spite of the letter. In the dispute considering the allegation and counter it is clear that during existence of the warranty period the TV set went defective and even after replacement of the certain components, the TV set needed further repair for its proper functioning for which the service engineer of OP No.1 took the TV set to authorized service station. From the facts presented by Ops one thing is clear that after the replacement of ‘B’ Board by the service engineer the TV set in question was failed to function normally for which the set was taken to the authorized service centre for further repair. It is implied that the said set was having more than one defects, which occurred during the existance of the warranty period. Complainant on prayer of the complaint seeks direction of the Forum to replace the old TV by a new one of same model. Now, the question before the Forum that the prayer of the complainant whether legally sustainable or not ? It is the settled position of law that in case of replacement on allegation of manufacturing defect there should be sufficient evidence of inherent manufacturing defects which could not be eradicated in spite of the repairs. In this aspect the allegation of the complainant is not sufficient that the TV set was inherent manufacturing defects. Further the Ops in their written version averred that as per terms and conditions “ If, during the warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated therein”. In support Ops filed copy of warranty which is marked as AnnexureR-3. But to our utter surprise the warranty copy produced in the case does not speak a single sentence to corroborate the warranty conditions mentioned on the written version, rather the warranty copy(Annexure R-3) filed into the case reveals that the terms and conditions of the manufacturing company Sony(OP No.1) is not liable on specific circumstances or misuse of the TV set. In the case in hand there is no allegation of misuse or wrong operation of the TV set by the complainant.
The next question to be decided that complainant alleging case of un fair trade practice and deficiency in service adopted by Ops plead that though the officials/mechanic of Ops took the TV set on dtd.06.06.2015 to the authorized service centre for its further check did not return the TV set in spite of the receipt of the legal notice of complainant dtd. 09.06.2015(Xerox copy of postal receipt filed), countering the allegations Ops submit that due to adamant nature of the complainant and on illegal demandfor replacement of New TV, complainant did not turn up to receive TV set, for which Ops wrote a letter to complainant to receive the TV set. The copy of the letter is filed into the dispute as Annexure-4. But the Ops did not whispered a single word regarding mode of communication of the letter to complainant dtd. 30.06.2015(Annexure R-4). According to us the Annexure R-4 is an afterthought idea of Ops to avoid legal complications.
It is the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission and different State CDR Commission that when a consumer purchases a Household articles/Home appliances like TV, Refrigerator, AC, computers etc. of a a reputed company he/she expects a quality service from the said product. If such products during the warranty period show defects, it certainly hurts the emotions/sentiments of the consumer who purchase the product by spending a good money. As per the discussions made above, it is clear that the subject TV was having more than one defect during the existance of the warranty and keeping the TV set with authorized service station for more than a year without intimating the complainant is not only a unfair trade practice adopted by OP No.1 but also violation of service obligation and keeping the TV set with authorized service centre of OP No.1 for more than a year has definitely gives mental agony to the complainant-consumer. However, considering the dispute as a whole we think it proper and lawful that Ops to deliver the subject TV set to the complainant without having any defects and with normal functioning of the set. It will be more logical and for the ends of justice the Ops will grant a extended warranty for a period of one year from the date of delivery of the subject TV, If during the extended warranty period the TV sets shows further defects the TV is to be replaced by a new TV of same model of same price up to the satisfaction of the complainant or to refund the price of the TV along with permissible interest calculating from the date of defect i.e. dtd.28.05.2015.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that OP No.1 will deliver the TV of the complainant through OP No.2 along with extended warranty period of one year from the date of its delivery and to pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within one month of receipt of the order, failing which action will be initiated as per the provisions of C.P.Act.
The complaint is allowed in part with cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 15th day of July,2016.
