DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.529 of 31-10-2011
Decided on 27-02-2012
Paramjeet Kaur, aged about 47 years, wife of Sh. H.P. Singh, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Resident of
Kothi No.268, Phase-II, Model Town, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044,
through its M.D./Chairman.
M/s Ravi Enterprises, Show Room 4551, Dhobi Bazar, Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner.
Sony Service Centre, Near Hotel Krishna Continental, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. J.S.Walia, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Sony LCD, Model KL-32X 400, bearing Sr.No.2386217 for a sum of Rs.37,900/- on 16.11.2010 from the opposite party No.2 vide bill No.1864 with one year warranty. The complainant has alleged that in the month of June, 2011, the problem occurred in the said LCD regarding Blurred Picture. The complainant complained about the same to the opposite party Nos.2&3. The opposite party No.3 sent the mechanics 2-3 times to the house of the complainant for checking the above said LCD. The concerned mechanics also agreed with the defect in the said LCD but the problem could not be removed. On 09.06.2011, the mechanics of the opposite party No.3 took the LCD from her house and kept the same in their service centre for about a week. Thereafter, they came to her house and informed her that some virus had occurred in the said LCD which has been removed and there will be no problem in future. The complainant has further alleged that the same problem occurred again and she complained about the same defect, the mechanics of the opposite party No.3 again replaced some parts by personally visiting the house of the complainant but the said problem could not be rectified rather the said LCD has been continuously giving the same problem of Blurred and Ghost picture. The complainant again lodged a complaint with the opposite party No.3, it installed another LCD in her house for comparison of picture with the picture of LCD of the complainant. The complainant noticed that there was huge difference in the quality of picture between both the LCDs. This fact was also admitted by the mechanics of the opposite party No.3 but failed to remove the defect in the said LCD. Thereafter on 30.08.2011, the mechanics of the opposite party No.3 again took the said defective LCD from the house of the complainant and sent the same to Ludhiana for testing from the Senior Mechanics. Thereafter, she received a phone call from Mr. Simarjit Singh who disclosed himself to be the Incharge of Punjab and asked her to come to Ludhiana for comparison of the picture but the complainant refused for the same being a lady and requested him to send the LCD at Bathinda. On 20.09.2011, the mechanics of the opposite party No.3 came to the house of the complainant and installed the said LCD on the assurance that the defect has been removed and Light Contrast Centre has been put on off but according to the service manual, the said function could not be selected “Off” in “Control for HDMI”. She was not satisfied with the said service provided by the opposite party No.3 as the picture was still not clear and was dark. On 24.09.2011, the mechanics of the opposite party No.3 again took the said LCD for comparison of the picture to the showroom of the opposite party No.2 and called the complainant for comparison but there was same defect of dark and blurred picture. The opposite party No.2 also assured her to get the same replaced with new one as there is some manufacturing defect in the LCD and since than the same is lying in the show room of the opposite party No.2. The complainant and her husband have been continuously visiting the office of the opposite party Nos.2&3 but the opposite parties flatly refused to provide any service on the pretext that now the technology has been changed and the picture cannot be at Par with new technology which contention is totally wrong, as earlier the complainant was having TV which remained functioning for about 20 years with clarity of picture without any defect. The complainant has further alleged that again on 04.10.2011, she received a phone call from the opposite party No.3 that Simarjeet has come from Ludhiana and requested her to visit the service centre, Bathinda, Mr. Simarjeet tried to compare the Full HD Ex.400 Model having Ambient sensor with LCD of low model HD Ready BX 300 without ambient sensor. All representatives including Mr. Simarjeet agreed that there is difference of picture while ambient sensor will be kept on 'ON' mode. He compelled her to run the LCD with ambient sensor on 'OFF' mode and when the complainant told that it has been instructed to keep all modes on 'ON' position in the instructions supplied by the company, his version was that the instructions mentioned in the service manual have no weightage. Thereafter, the complainant has also got issued a legal notice dated 05.10.2011 to the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not give proper reply to the said notice. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to replace the above said defective LCD with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.37,900/- along with interest, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their written statements. The opposite party No.1 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the present complaint is baseless and has been filed to injure the interest and reputation of the opposite party No.1. The reply to the complaint is being signed on behalf of the opposite party No.1 by Ms. Vineeta Tyagi who has been authorized by the opposite party No.1 vide Board Resolution dated 04.07.2011. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that the products of the opposite party No.1 are sold to the customers through a network of its dealers across the country. It has admitted that the complainant had purchased a LCD bearing Model No.KLV-32EX 400, having Serial No.2386217 on 16.11.2010 from the opposite party No.2 who is an authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that it provides a warranty of one year on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty, provided by it. Under the terms of warranty, the opposite party No.1 is liable only to repair the product of the complainant and not to replace the same unless the same suffers from a manufacturing defect which is not the case with the LCD of the complainant. In fact after thorough inspection by the opposite party No.3, the LCD was found to be in perfect working condition. The complainant herself admits that the LCD has been used by her successfully for a period of 8 months without any defect. The complainant had complained about the LCD to the opposite party No.3 twice and on each time, the opposite party No.3 has diligently rectified all the problems related to panel of the LCD by replacing it successfully and after thorough inspection and proper demonstration of the same, handed over the LCD to her in perfect working condition. The opposite party No.3 on receipt of another complaint from the complainant, made a comparative demonstration of the subject product with another LCD of the complainant and tried to satisfy her. The comparison of both the products, was done properly in the presence of the complainant and all the technical aspects related to the ambient sensor which is responsible for the picture quality of the LCD by adjusting itself to light and room temperature was explained to the complainant and it was also explained that the same technology was not present in other product so there was a difference in the picture quality. The suggestion of turning off the ambient sensor, was given to the complainant in order to get a uniform picture quality but she completely ignored the correct advice provided by the officials of the opposite party No.3. The complainant has also failed to file any independent expert report with regard to any defect in the LCD. The opposite party No.1 has taken the support of various judgments. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that they have in compliance of the terms of warranty, provided the services to the complainant which cannot be denied by herself. The officials of the opposite parties have never admitted that there is any manufacturing defect in the LCD. Further, the opposite party No.1 has replied to the legal notice 05.10.2011 vide reply dated 14.10.2011. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that there was no cause of action to file the present complaint before this Forum.
3. The opposite party Nos.2&3 have filed their separate joint written statement and pleaded that the present complaint is baseless and has been filed to injure the interest and reputation of the opposite parties. The reply to the complaint is being signed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 by Ravi Chawla, who is an authorized being proprietor of the opposite party No.2 and reply on behalf of opposite party No.3 is signed by Hardinesh Aggarwal, who is authorized to do so on behalf of opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.2 is a dealer of the opposite party No.1 and is responsible only for the sale of products and is neither liable to nor entitled to provide after sales services to the customers. Further, the opposite party No.3 is an authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1 and provides after sales services for the products of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party Nos.2&3 have further pleaded that the opposite party No.1 provides a warranty of one year on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. Under the terms of warranty, the opposite party No.3 is liable only to repair the product of the complainant and not to replace the same unless the same suffers from a manufacturing defect which is not the case with the LCD of the complainant. In fact after thorough inspection by the opposite party No.3, the LCD was found to be in perfect working condition. The complainant herself admits that the LCD has been used by her successfully for a period of 8 months without any defect. The complainant had complained about the LCD to the opposite party No.3 twice and on each time, the opposite party No.3 has diligently rectified all the problems related to panel of the LCD by replacing it successfully and after thorough inspection and proper demonstration of the same, handed over the LCD to her in perfect working condition. The opposite party No.3 on receipt of another complaint from the complainant, made a comparative demonstration of the subject product with another LCD of the complainant and tried to satisfy her. The comparison of both the products, was done properly in the presence of the complainant and all the technical aspects related to the ambient sensor which is responsible for the picture quality of the LCD by adjusting itself to light and room temperature was explained to the complainant and it was also explained that the same technology was not present in other product so there was a difference in the picture quality. The suggestion of turning off the ambient sensor, was given to the complainant in order to get a uniform picture quality but she completely ignored the advice provided by the officials of the opposite party No.3. The complainant has also failed to file any independent expert report with regard to any defect in the LCD. The opposite party Nos.2&3 have taken the support of various judgments. The opposite party Nos2&3 have further pleaded that they have in compliance of the terms of warranty, provided the services to the complainant which cannot be denied by herself. The officials of the opposite parties have never admitted that there is any manufacturing defect in the LCD.
4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. The complainant has submitted that the LCD so purchased by her from the opposite party No.2 on 16.11.2010 has shown some defects in the month of June, 2011. She complained about the same to the opposite party No.2 and also to the opposite party No.3 i.e. authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1 as the LCD in question was giving Ghost/blurred picture. The opposite party No.3 sent the mechanics 2/3 times to her house for checking the LCD in question, the concerned mechanics agreed with the defect in the LCD but could not remove the defect in it. On 09.06.2011, the mechanics of the opposite party No.3 took the LCD of the complainant and kept it in their service centre for about a week. It was informed to the complainant that some virus entered in the LCD, that has been removed and in future there will be no problem but the same problem reoccurred. The complainant again complained about the same defect in her LCD. The mechanics of the opposite party No.3 again replaced some parts of the LCD but again, the said problem could not be rectified rather the LCD has been giving continuously the same problem. The complainant again complained with the opposite party No.3 who had installed another LCD in the house of the complainant for comparison of the picture with the picture of LCD of the complainant. The complainant noticed that there was huge difference in the quality of the picture between the picture of the LCD of the complainant and the LCD installed by the opposite party No.3 for comparison, this fact was also admitted by the mechanics of the opposite party No.3. On 30.08.2011, the mechanics of the opposite party No.3 again took the said defective LCD from her house and sent the same to Ludhiana for checking from Senior Mechanics. The complainant had received phone call from one Simarjit Singh who disclosed himself to be the Incharge of Punjab and asked the complainant to come Ludhiana for comparison of the picture. The complainant refused being a lady and requested him to send the LCD at Bathinda. The mechanics of the opposite party No.3 came to the house of the complainant on 20.09.2011 and installed the said LCD on the assurance that the defect has been removed and Light Contrast Centre has been put on off but according to the service manual, the said function could not be selected “Off” in “Control for HDMI”. The complainant was not satisfied with the service provided by the opposite party No.3 as the picture was still not clear and dark. Again on her complaint, on 24.09.2011, the mechanics of the opposite party No.3 took the LCD of the complainant for comparison of the picture to the show room of the opposite party No.2 and installed the same to the showroom of the opposite party No.2 but there was same defect of dark and blurred picture. The opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that it would get the same replaced with new one as there is some manufacturing defect in the LCD and since than the same is lying in the showroom of the opposite party No.2 but not replaced till date, although the complainant and her husband has been visiting the opposite party Nos.2&3 but ultimately they have refused to provide any service on the ground that now the technology has been changed and the picture cannot be at Par with new technology. On 04.10.2011, the complainant had received phone call from the opposite party No.3 that Simarjit Singh has come to Bathinda and requested her to come to the service centre at Bathinda at 6.00 P.M. The said Simarjit Singh tried to compare the Full HD Ex.400 Model having Ambient Sensor with LCD of low model HD Ready BX 300 without ambient sensor. The said Simarjit Singh and his representative agreed that there is difference of picture while ambient sensor is on 'ON' mode, he compelled the complainant to run the LCD with ambient sensor on 'OFF' mode and when the complainant told that it has been instructed to keep all modes in 'ON' position in the instructions supplied by the company, his version that the instructions mentioned in the service manual have no weightage. The complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 05.10.2011 requesting the opposite parties, either to replace the said defective LCD with new one or to refund the price of the LCD in question within a period of five days from the date of receipt of notice but the opposite parties did not give any reply to the said notice and has refused to accede to the requests of the complainant.
7. The opposite party No.1 has submitted that the opposite party No.1 is engaged in the business of distribution and marketing various electronics items under the brand name of “Sony” and it holds a reputed position in the field of electronics and provides services to its customers through a network of its service centers across the country. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that the dealers and authorized service centre i.e. opposite party Nos.2&3 are independent entities. The opposite party No.1 has admitted that the complainant had purchased a LCD bearing Model No.KLV-32EX 400, having Serial No.2386217 on 16.11.2010 from the opposite party No.2, an authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1. It provides the warranty of one year on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty, provided by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. Under the terms of warranty, the opposite party No.1 is liable only to repair the product and not to replace the same unless the same suffers from a manufacturing defect. A thorough inspection of the LCD was done by the opposite party No.3, it was found in perfect working condition. The complainant has herself submitted that she has been using the said LCD successfully for the period of 8 months without any defect. According to the terms of the warranty, the opposite parties have provided best service to the complainant and the same cannot be denied by the complainant herself. The complainant had complained about the LCD in question to the opposite party No.3 twice, on each occasion, the opposite party No.3 has diligently rectified all the alleged defects relating to panel of the LCD by replacing it successfully and after thorough inspection, handed over the said LCD to the complainant in perfect working condition. The opposite parties have also given the comparative demonstration of the subject product with another LCD and tried to satisfy the complainant. The comparison of both the products, was done properly in the presence of the complainant and all the technical aspects related to the ambient sensor which is responsible for the picture quality of the LCD in question by adjusting itself to light and room temperature was explained to the complainant and it was also explained that the same technology was not present in other product so there was a difference in the picture quality. It was suggested by the opposite parties to turn off the ambient sensor, in order to get a uniform picture quality but the complainant completely ignored the advice provided by the opposite party No.3. The complainant has not placed on file any independent expert report as defined under Section 2(1) (a) of the 'Act with regard to any defect in the LCD. The opposite party No.1 has relied upon the precedent laid down by Hon'ble Kerala State Commission in case titled Sabeena Cycle Emporium Chennakhaada Vs Thajes Ravi M.R.Pancha villa vedar Ezkhone P.O. (1992)I CPJ 97 and Keshab Ram Mahta Vs Hero Honda Motors Limited and Another, I(2003) CPJ 244. The opposite party No.1 has also produced the law that if there is some defect in the product, he can not asked for replacement of the whole product and has referred the law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs B.C. Thakurdesai and Anr. II(1993) CPJ 225 (NC) and Supreme Court, Maruti Udyog Limited Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Another, 2006(4) SCC, 644. The opposite party No.1 has further submitted that the complaints of the complainant, were duly attended and has placed the reliance on the observation of Hon'ble National Commission, in case titled Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs Vir Pratap (1997) II CPJ 81 (NC).
8. The opposite party Nos.2&3 have filed almost the same reply as that of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is a dealer of the opposite party No.1. The warranty is provided by the opposite party No.1 for one year and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and the opposite parties cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. Under the terms of the warranty, the opposite party No.3 is liable only to repair the LCD in question of the complainant. The complainant has used the LCD in question for 8 months without any defect. The complainant has complained to the opposite party No.3 twice and on each occasion, the opposite party No.3 has diligently rectified all problems related to panel of the LCD by replacing it and after thorough inspection, the same was handed over to the complainant in perfect working condition. All the technical aspects related to the ambient sensor which is responsible for the picture quality of the LCD by adjusting itself to light and room temperature was explained to the complainant and it was also explained that the same technology was not present in other product as such there is a difference in the picture quality. The suggestion of turning off the ambient sensor was given to the complainant in order to get a uniform picture quality but the complainant completely ignored the correct advice provided by the officials of the opposite party No.3. There is no independent report placed on file by the complainant.
9. The Invoice dated 16.11.2010 Ex.C-5 shows that the complainant had purchased the said LCD for a sum of Rs.37,900/- with one year warranty. Ex.C-8 shows, 'Cannot select “off” in Control for HDMI'. 'If you have connected any audio system that is compatible with Control for HDMI, you cannot select “off” in this menu. To change the audio output to the TV speaker, select “TV Speaker” in the “Speaker” menu.
10. The complainant has complained the opposite parties with regard to the problem in the product vide Ex.C-9. According to Ex.C-10, the customer has received the said LCD with remarks, “Result unsatisfied, received for observations.” Again on 13.07.2010 vide Ex.C-11, the complainant has received the LCD with remarks, “Result unsatisfied, Received for observations.”
11. The complainant has placed on file Ex.C-13 the information on Ambient Sensor: “Automatically optimises colour temperature and brightness of the picture according to ambient light.”
12. The allegations of the complainant are that the LCD in question was giving Ghost and Blurred picture and the opposite party No.3 has sent their mechanics 2-3 times for checking the same to the house of the complainant, the concerned mechanics also agreed with the problem but could not remove the same.
13. To prove her version that the concerned officials/mechanics were not satisfied with the working of the LCD, she has not produced on file any evidence. No written comments or admission by the opposite parties, is placed on filed. 09.06.2011, the mechanics of the opposite party No.3 took the LCD from the house of the complainant, kept it in their service centre for about a week and came to her house and informed her that virus had occurred, that has been removed by the opposite party No.3. The complainant herself admitted that the opposite party No.3 replaced some parts. The panel of the said LCD was replaced. The opposite party No.3 has also installed another LCD in the house of the complainant for comparison between the picture of the LCD of the complainant and that of model KLV-32BX300.
14. The legal notice sent by the complainant was duly replied by Vineeta Tyagi, Regional Customer Care Incharge-North, Service Operations. The relevant paras 2,3& 4 are reproduced as under:-
2. The company had received the aforesaid product for service support at our Authorized Service Centre, M/s Adev Electronics, Bathinda on 09.07.2011 vide job number WS100833611070900083 with nature of complaint “Picture problem”. Upon inspection of the set, engineer observed symptom “Negative Picture” and necessary service was done by replacing the part (LCD panel). Further upon inspection of the set, the product was found to be working fine and within its specifications. After rectifying the reported complaint, the aforesaid product was delivered at your clients place on 13.07.2011.
3. The company had received the aforesaid product for service support at our Authorized Service Centre, M/s Adev Electronics, Bathinda on 31.08.2011 vide job number WS100833611083100413 with nature of complaint “Picture problem”. Upon inspection and observation of the set, the product was found to be working fine and within its specifications. The aforesaid product was delivered at your clients place on 03.09.2011.
4. The company had received the information from dealer, M/s Ravi Enterprises, Bathinda that aforesaid product is deposited by your client at dealer end stating the nature of complaint “picture quality not good”. The product was checked there and was found to be working fine and within its specifications.
Therefore, your client called upon our Area Service Incharge, Mr. Simarjit Singh on 04.10.2011 regarding picture quality of the product. Although the product was working fine and within its specifications, still for your client's satisfaction it was again thoroughly checked at our authorized service center, M/s Adev Electronics vide job number WS100833611092900256 and further upon observation, the product was found to be working fine and within its specifications.
The LCD panel was replaced and the product was working dine within the specifications. Each and every time, the complaints of the complainant were duly attended upon.
15. The complainant has alleged that there was difference in the picture quality but no such evidence has been produced on file by the complainant to prove her this version. On 30.08.2011, the mechanics of the opposite parties took the LCD from the house of the complainant and sent the same to Ludhiana for checking from senior mechanics. The opposite parties asked the complainant to visit Ludhiana for comparison of the LCD, to which the complainant refused and requested to send the LCD at Bathinda. On 20.09.2011, the LCD was installed with assurance that the defect has been removed. The onus lies on the complainant to prove her allegations against the opposite parties with cogent and convincing evidence.
16. Sh. Urfee Haider on behalf of the opposite party No.1 has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-10 in para Nos.8&9:
“8. I say that the opposite parties have always been very diligent and active in providing their services to the complain, as even after the necessary replacement being carried out in the LCD and after demonstration of the same in perfect working condition, the opposite party No.3 on receipt of another complaint from the complainant made a comparative demonstration of the subject product with another LCD of the complainant bearing Model No.KLV 32EK 300 and tried to satisfy the complainant.
9. I say that the comparison of both the products was done properly in the presence of the complainant and all the technical aspects related to the ambient sensor which is responsible for the picture quality of the LCD by adjusting itself to light and room temperature was explained to the complainant and it was also explained that the same technology was not present in the other product and hence there was a difference in the picture quality. I further say that the suggestion of turning off the ambient sensor was given to the complainant in order to get a uniform picture quality but the complainant completely ignored the correct advice provided by the officials of the opposite party No.2.”
17. There is no expert evidence placed on file by the complainant that the LCD in question is not working properly and had inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant has filed the present complaint after 8 months of its purchasing and using the same which is sufficient to prove that there is no manufacturing defect in the said LCD. Further more, a perusal of warranty Ex.R-3 shows, “Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called “Son”) warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects during the period indicated on page 1, in the section-'Valid Upto'. This non-transferable warranty is only for you, the first end user. If during this period of warranty the product proves to be defective due to improper material of workmanship, Sony Service Centres/Authorized Service Centres will repair the product free of charge subject to the terms and conditions.”
The support can be sought by the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another, 2006(2) CLT 150 wherein it has been held:
“J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1988, Section 17 – Car – Manufacturing defect – Warranty obligation – The warranty condition clearly refers to the replacement of the defective part and not the car – This is not a case of silence of a contract of sale as to warranty – The High Court held not justified in directing replacement of the vehicle.”
18. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the part opposite parties. However, the said LCD is lying with the opposite parties, the opposite parties are directed to install the said LCD in the house of the complainant immediately on receipt of copy of this order. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
27-02-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
