Orissa

Cuttak

CC/107/2015

Balmukunda Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K M Patra

11 Dec 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.107/2015

Sri Balamukunda Das,

Sanjivani,At:Shreevihar Colony,

Tulasipur,Cuttack.                                                      … Complainant.

 

                                Vrs.

 

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,A-31,Mohan Cooperative

Industrial Estate,Mathura Road,New Delhi-110044

Through its Customer Relations,

Corporate Office,Ms. Meena Bose.

 

2. Regional Customer Care In-charge,M/s. Soma Bose,

East,Kolkata,Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,199,

2^nd Floor,Block-2D,White House,Part Street,

Opp. To APG School,Kolkata-700016.   

 

3. Sri Jayal Service,near Ram Mandir,

Badambadi,Cuttack-753009.

 

4. M/s. L.P.Electronics (O) Pvt. Ltd.,

College Square,Cuttack-753003.                                       … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   07.10.2015

Date of Order: 11.12.2017.

 

For the complainant:               Sri K.M.Patra,Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp.Parties :               M/s. Sweta Bharati,Advocate & Associates.

 

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Member.

                The case is against deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

1. Shortly the case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a Sony T.V on 04.12.2006 for Rs.20,300/- from the local dealer(Annexure-1).  The T.V was running smoothly till 20.07.2014 but on 21.07.2014 the off/on switch of the said T.V set did not function properly for which the complainant lodged a complaint with the service centre i.e. O.P No.3.  On 23.07.2014. An authorized person came from service centre to the house of the petitioner examined the T.V and took the circuit-kit of the T.V to the service centre for check up and repair.  On 31.07.2014 the T.V was repaired and given to the complainant and a sum of Rs.2013/- was paid towards repair charges.(Annexure-2).  The T.V functioned for 6/7 hours without colour picture for which the complainant again intimated the matter to the O.P. No.3 immediately.  Again the T.V was attended by O.P No.3 on 05.08.2014.  Again the circuit of the said T.V set was taken by the service centre for repair and again fixed the same on the T.V set on 11.08.2014.  But the T.V set again went out of order with some new problems along with the existing problems.  It was not repaired /replaced even after several correspondences with O.Ps (1 to 3).(Annexure-3 series).  Finding no alternative, the complainant purchased another T.V for his use for Rs.35,000/-.  A legal notice was served on the O.Ps on 29.11.2014(Annexure-4).  An offer was given to him by O.P No.1 to purchase a new T.V in exchange of old one with 25% discount on the MRP.(Annexure-5).  But it was not acceptable to the complainant since he had already purchased another T.V.  The offer was also not attractive since such offers are usually given on exchange of old set.  Another legal notice was also served on the O.P on 16.02.2015 but in vain.  Finding no other way, the complainant has filed this suit with the Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards mental agony and harassment, Rs.20,300/- towards cost of T.V, Rs.2013/- which was paid towards repair and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
2. O.P No.1 vide evidence affidavit has stated that a Sony T.V was purchased by the complainant on 04.12.2006 from O.P No.4.  The said T.V w as in use without any problem for about 8 years.  The complainant approached the O.P No.3 alleging defect of no power on 23.07.2014.  The said T.V was inspected by O.P No.3 vide job sheet No.J 41815257.  The defective spare part was replaced and Rs.2013/- was charged for the purpose.  The said set was returned to the complainant on 31.07.2014.  The complainant again approached the service centre on 26.09.2014 alleging the defect of ‘Blue picture’ in the said T.V.  The said T.V set was again inspected vide job sheet No.J 42211324 and the service engineer of O.ps observed that the picture tube of the T.V had failed.  The T.V was about 8 years old and therefore there was indefinite delay in receiving the spare part of the said T.V.  In spite of the fact that the said T.V set had undergone depreciation to a substantial extent, the O.Ps projecting a good will gesture and to ensure maximum satisfaction to the complainant offered a concessional discount of 25% on purchase of a new T.V in exchange of the old and defective one but the complainant did not agree to the same and has filed the complaint.  Under clause-7 of the standard warranty terms and conditions of the O.Ps it is clearly mentioned that “we reserve the right to decline repair service of products if the product is more than 5 years old or if the product is damaged extensively or the condition has deteriorated such that the reliable repair service cannot be guaranteed or if the failure is caused due to lightning, ingress of water fire or if the product has been attended(repair on modification) by any other unauthorized person or if parts are procured by customer from any other source.  In the present case the complainant has approached the O.ps for repair of the said T.V after 8 years of purchase and the O.Ps are under no obligation to repair the same as per above mentioned warranty terms and conditions.  The complainant had accepted such warranty terms at the time of purchase and thus the complainant is bound by the warranty terms and conditions in the same way as the manufacturer.  Since the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction in good faith it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service.
3. We have gone through the records of the case in details and heard the advocates from both the sides at length.  We have observed that the complainant had purchased a T.V. (Sony CTV-SZ 29M 80) on 04.12.2006.  On 21.07.2014 i.e. after about  seven years, seven and half months the T.V developed some problem for which it was given for repair to service centre(O.P No.3) on 23.07.2014 vide Job sheet No.J 41525267 dt.23.07.2014.  After repair the T.V was delivered to the complainant on 31.07.2014 on payment of repair charges amounting to Rs.2013.00.  It is a fact that the said T.V set was out of warranty during such repair.  On 8^th August,2014 another complaint was lodged that the T.V set which was repaired and delivered on 31.08.2014 has again developed some problem w.e.f 01.08.2014.  Vide his letter the complainant has again intimated to O.P that the said set was again repaired on 11.08.2014 but was again out of order on 12.08,.2014.  On 04.09.2014 the complainant again reminded the O.P regarding the problems.  On 05.09.2014 Smt. Meena Bose from Sony India Pvt. Ltd. replied that they are asking their regional office to look into the matter immediately.  On 09.10.2014 Mrs. Soma Bose, Regional Customer Care Incharge,East Kolkata intimated to the complainant that vide Job No.J 42211324 dt.2.09.2014 they have received service request from their authorized service centre for the said T.V with symptom-bluish picture and after inspection it was learnt that the CRT tube needs to be replaced.  Since the spare availability is indefinite, as an alternative option, the complainant was advised to purchase a new Sony Bravia T.V from the current range of models @ 75% of the MRP of the product i.e. 25% discount on the product.  The complainant did not agree to such a proposal and replied on 26.10.,2014 to bring the said T.V to normal condition with usual colour as it was before repair , failing which he would approach the proper court of law.  A legal notice dt.19.11.2014 was served on the O.Ps to this effect.  On 18.12.2014 the company replied and intimated that the CRT needs to be replaced.  Due to indefinite delay in receiving the spare and since the product is in its 8^th year and is nearing its life as an alternative they again offered the anew Sony Bravia T.V with 25% discount.   The O.Ps in their written version dt.20.09.2016 have stated that “we reserve the right to decline repair service of products if the product is more than 5 years old or if the product is damaged extensively or the condition has deteriorated such that reliable repair service cannot be guaranted or if the failure is caused due to lightning, ingress of water, fire or if the product has been attended (repair service or modification) by any unauthorized person or parts are procured by the customer from any other source”.   The O.Ps have also stated that the availability of spare was indefinite (letter dt.9.10.2014 and dt.18.12.2014 of O.P No.2).  But in spite of such facts the O.P No.3 had accepted the T.V for repair after 7 years and repaired it for a repair cost of Rs.2013/- but the complainant was not satisfied since the problem continued in some form or other. It is true that the set was more than 7 years old and was out of warranty but the O.P No.3 being a group of technical persons/service engineers could have properly identified the problem at once or could have refused the customer (complainant) to repair such a T.V since it was more than 5 years old. But knowing all such facts, the O.P No.3 accepted such T.V for repair and failed to locate the problem at once for which the set was not repaired properly. 

Basing on the facts and circumstances, we have observed that O.P No.3 is at fault since they have failed to provide proper service to the complainant.  Thus O.P No.3 is deficient in service.

                                                                                ORDER

                O.P No.3 will refund the repair cost amounting to Rs.2013/- taken from the customer towards repair of the said T.V.  O.P No.3 will also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and a further sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation.  Thus O.P No.3 will pay a total sum of Rs.10,013/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt  this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Hon’ble Forum again as per C.P.Act,1986.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 11^th day of December,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

   (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                       Member.

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                   (  Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                             President.

                                                                                                 (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                           Member(W).