DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023.
Filed on: 15/12/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC 414/2020
COMPLAINANT
JIBI PETER, S/o. late M.E Peter, residing at XII/193 D, Mattamel House, MRRA 209.MoolepadamRoad, Vazhakala, Kakkanad West P.O., 682030, Ernakulam
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Regional office- Chennai ,Sony India Pvt. Ltd , 6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road , KG NTR Heritage, Dr Subbaraya Nagar Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024. Tamil Nadu.
- Sony India limited, Head office, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
- Sony India limited, Branch Office, 2nd Floor, Muscut Tower, S.A. Road, Kadavanthra, Cochin 682020
(OP No. 1 to 3 Rep. by Adv. K.S. Arundas, KHCAA Chamber No. 450, Near High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased a Sony LED Television with model no 40W900A#26160 from Bismi Appliances in Kaloor, Kochi on March 25, 2014, for a sum of Rs. 75,500/-. The television developed a fault and the service engineer from the company inspected it and stated that the board was faulty and needed replacement. However, the company expressed its inability to replace it due to the unavailability of the required part and instead offered a new television with a discount on the MRP.
The complainant expressed dissatisfaction with this offer and requested the television to be repaired. The company responded by stating that spare parts were not available and offered an exchange of the old television for a new Bravia LED television at a discounted price, based on the model selected by the complainant. The complainant was unhappy with the price offered for the new television model.
In their final communication, the company refused to repair the television based on their service terms and conditions, which stated that they reserve the right to decline repair or service for products more than 5 years old. The complainant argued that the company has a duty to ensure the availability of spare parts for sold products for a reasonable period of time.
The complainant purchased the expensive television based on trust in the brand and the expectation that it would last for at least 10 years. The non-availability of spare parts is seen as an unfair trade practice, forcing customers to buy new products. The company's inability to repair and provide spare parts is considered a deficiency in their service.
The complainant claims relief in three ways: firstly, to repair the old television; secondly, to replace the old television with a new one valued at Rs 1,00,000; and thirdly, compensation totalling Rs 1,35,000 for deficiency in service, mental harassment, financial loss, and the cost of litigation.
2). Notices
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite party received the notice and filed their versions.
3). THE VERSIONS OF OPPOSITE PARTIES
The opposite parties state that the complainant's case is based on unfair trade practice allegations without providing any grounds or reasons to support them. They argue that the allegations are baseless and made with ulterior motives to tarnish their reputation. The opposite party explains that the complainant purchased a Sony LED TV in 2014 and used it satisfactorily for almost 6 years without any complaints. However, on October 10, 2020, the complainant approached the opposite party with a service request due to display and blinking issues.
Since the TV was out of warranty, the opposite party examined it and found that the main board was damaged and needed replacement. However, as the TV model was more than 7 years old, they couldn't find a replacement main board. According to their standard repair terms and conditions, they reserve the right to decline repair service for products more than 5 years old or extensively damaged. The opposite party communicated the non-availability of the main board to the complainant and offered to exchange the TV for a newer model at a special cost. The complainant rejected the initial offer and requested further discounts, which were also provided but rejected. As a gesture to resolve the dispute amicably, the opposite party is willing to refund 22% of the purchase value of the TV.
The opposite parties assert that the complainant has filed the complaint on weak and fabricated grounds in an attempt to gain undue benefits from them. They argue that the complainant has failed to demonstrate how the opposite parties engaged in unfair trade practices as alleged. They deny the complainant's claim that the purchase was based on trust in the brand and the expectation of a 10-year lifespan for the product. The opposite party also denies that it is their duty to ensure spare parts availability beyond five years when the model is discontinued, stating that this expectation is unethical from a consumer standpoint. They vehemently deny that the non-availability of spare parts is an ulterior motive to force customers to buy new products and argue that their inability to repair and provide spare parts does not indicate a deficiency in their services.
In summary, the opposite parties denied any unfair trade practice allegations and explains the efforts made to resolve the issue, including offering an exchange and a refund.
4). Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-5.
Exhibit A-1: Copy of Purchase Bill
Exhibit A-2: Copy of Service Engineer Attended Report
Exhibit A-3: Copy of Notice send on 30.10.20 through speed post.
Exhibit A-4: Copy of Receipt from Postal Department
Exhibit A-5: Copy of Id Proof - Aadhar Card
The Opposite Parties had filed a proof affidavit and 4 documents that were marked as Exhibits-B-1 to B-4.
Exhibit B-1: A Copy of the Board Resolution dated 04.07.2011 passed by the Board of the Opposite Party No.2
Exhibit B-2: Copy of the job sheet no. J36174 issued by the Opposite Party No.2
Exhibit B-3: Copy of the Standard Repair Terms and Conditions of Opposite Party No. 2
Exhibit B-4: Copy of the email communication dated 11.11.2020 sent by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, the complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced the Copy of Purchase Bill. (Exhibit A-1). Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The above case is filed by the complainant for compensation for the deficiency in service of opposite party
in connection with the spare parts were not available and offered an exchange of the old television for a new Bravia LED television at a discounted price, based on the model selected by the complainant.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that
he made an expensive purchase based on trust in the brand and the legitimate expectation that the product would have a lifespan of at least 10 years. They believe that it is the duty of the manufacturer to ensure the availability of spare parts for a reasonable period of time after the product has been sold. They consider the company's lack of responsibility in providing assistance after five years, when the model is discontinued, to be unethical from a consumer perspective. The complainant alleges that the non-availability of spare parts is a deliberate tactic to compel customers to buy new products, which they consider an unfair trade practice. They also assert that the company's inability to repair and provide spare parts demonstrates a deficiency in their service. The complainant states that he purchased the television six years ago for Rs. 75,500, and its current market value is equal to or higher than Rs. 1 lakh. As a result of the aforementioned actions, the complainant claims to have suffered significant losses, damages, mental distress, trauma, inconvenience, and financial loss, especially during the pandemic situation.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that
the complainant has filed the complaint on weak and fabricated grounds in an attempt to gain undue benefits from them. They claim that the complainant has failed to demonstrate how the opposite parties engaged in unfair trade practices as alleged. They assert that the complaint is merely an attempt to damage their reputation and extort money from them. The opposite party denies that the complainant made an expensive purchase based on trust in the brand and the expectation of a 10-year lifespan for the product. They also deny that it is the duty of the manufacturer to ensure the availability of spare parts for sold products beyond a reasonable period. They argue that the company is not responsible for providing help after five years when the model is discontinued, which they believe is not unethical from a consumer standpoint. Additionally, they strongly deny that the non-availability of spare parts is an ulterior motive to force customers to buy new products and assert that their inability to repair and provide spare parts does not indicate a deficiency in their services.
The complainant reported a fault with their TV and a service engineer from the opposite party inspected it, confirming that the motherboard was faulty and needed to be replaced (Exhibit A-2). However, the opposite party informed the complainant over the phone that they were unable to replace the motherboard as it was not available. Instead, they offered to sell a new television with a discount on its maximum retail price (MRP).
In response to this offer, the complainant expressed dissatisfaction and sent a notice via email and registered post, stating their dissatisfaction with the proposed solution. They emphasized that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to provide spare parts for a reasonable period of time (Exhibit A-3). The opposite party replied to the complainant's email, reiterating their inability to repair the TV due to the unavailability of spare parts. As an alternative solution, they offered to exchange the old TV with a new Bravia LED television at a discounted price, based on the selected model (Exhibit A-4).
In a subsequent email communication, the opposite party expressed their refusal to comply with the complainant's demand for TV repair, citing their service terms and conditions. (Exhibit A-5.)
Top of Form
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is designed to protect consumers' interests against unfair trade practices and ensure that their rights are upheld. The right to repair is based on the principle that consumers should have access to affordable and timely repair services for the products they purchase. It recognizes that consumers have the right to expect that their products can be repaired if they develop faults or defects within a reasonable period of time.
The CPA requires manufacturers and service providers to honour warranties and guarantees provided with their products. If a product malfunctions or requires repair within the warranty period, the consumer has the right to have it repaired or replaced free of charge, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty.
Even beyond the warranty period, consumers have the right to repair. This means that manufacturers and service providers should make spare parts available for a reasonable period of time after a product is sold. They should also provide repair services or facilitate repairs through authorized service centres.
If a manufacturer or service provider fails to honour the Right To Repair, it can be seen as a deficiency in their service. Consumers can file complaints with the appropriate consumer commissions seeking remedies such as repair, replacement and compensation.
In India, there is no specific legislation dedicated to the Right to Repair; however, there have been instances where the issue has been brought before the judiciary. In the case of Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars Limited & Ors., the Hon arable Competition Commission of India (CCI) explicitly stated that any anti-competitive practices disguised as Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) by the automobile sector should be ceased and invalidated. This case specifically dealt with the anti-competitive practice of restricting consumers to purchase goods or services solely from authorized car dealers. Another significant case is Sanjeev Nirwani v. HCL, where the court ruled, that companies are obliged to provide spare parts even beyond the warranty period. Failure to make spare parts available would be considered an unfair trade practice. This decision highlights the responsibility of companies to ensure the availability of spare parts to consumers.
While there is no dedicated legislation, these judicial precedents address the issue of Right to Repair in India, emphasizing the importance of consumer choice, fair competition, and the obligation of companies to provide spare parts even after the warranty period.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
It has become a practice with manufacturing companies to lure people with advertisements to purchase their products and thereafter fleece them of their hard-earned money by denying their liability to provide spare parts and consumable parts to its consumers essential for the working of the product during the average length of life. This is a perfect case that affects the consumer community at large irrespective of the product used by them. If the manufacturers of products after sale deny their liability to provide the spare parts and consumable parts, they force the consumers to abandon the products which are otherwise in proper working condition. This amounts to unfair trade practices on the part of the manufacturers to escalate their sales and profit figures by thrusting the consumers to abandon the product and purchase a new one in its place.
This prima facie this leads to the conclusion that the product is defective and hence is liable to be replaced or the purchase price to be refunded.
We find the issues Nos. (ii) to (iv) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss... etc. due to the negligence on the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties.
Hence it the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties shall refund an amount of 50% of the purchase cost of the T.V. which is Rs.37,500/- (50% of 75,000/-).
- The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties shall pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the 2nd opposite party.
- The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties shall also pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of May, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Forwarded by O
Senior Superintendent
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit A-1: Copy of Purchase Bill
Exhibit A-2: Copy of Service Engineer Attended Report
Exhibit A-3: Copy of Notice send on 30.10.20 through speed post.
Exhibit A-4: Copy of Receipt from Postal Department
Exhibit A-5: Copy of Id Proof - Aadhar Card
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit B-1: A Copy of the Board Resolution dated 04.07.2011 passed by the Board of the Opposite Party No.2
Exhibit B-2: Copy of the job sheet no. J36174 issued by the Opposite Party No.2
Exhibit B-3: Copy of the Standard Repair Terms and Conditions of Opposite Party No. 2
Exhibit B-4: Copy of the email communication dated 11.11.2020 sent by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant.
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 414/2020
Order Date: 31/05/2023
