Delhi

North

CC/426/2022

MS. PRATIBHA BHIM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

08 May 2023

ORDER

       District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. 426/2022

In the matter of

Pratibha Bhim Singh

H.NO. B-4, Shaktikunj Apartment

Burari, Delhi-84                                                               …       Complainant

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

Having registered office at:

A-18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

Delhi-44                                                                       …        Opposite Party

 

ORDER
08/05/2023

 

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

Jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked by Ms. Pratibha Bhim Singh, the complainant, against Sony India Pvt. Ltd., the Opposite Party (OP), with the allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

1. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that , on 21/10/2016 the complainant purchased television manufactured by OP for Rs. 61,592/-. It has been stated by the complainant that the said TV stopped working in the last week of November 2021, for which a complaint was registered with the customer care of OP.
2. The complainant has stated that after repeated follow up the, complainant was suggested to purchase another Sony TV of a higher value, which the complainant cannot afford. Every time, the complainant was assured that the issue would be resolved, but same was delayed on one pretext or the other.
3. It has been stated by the complainant that, the OP not only failed to address the grievance of the complainant but also failed to render quality services. Despite correspondence through telephonic mode and emails, OP failed to rectify the defect in the television. Feeling aggrieved by the omission on the part of OP to repair the television has caused mental agony and  harassment, hence, the present complaint with the prayer for directions to OP to render proper services and refund Rs.61,592/- with interest, compensation of           Rs. 70,000/- on account of deficiency in services and mental agony and cost of litigation. The complainant has annexed the invoice dated 21/10/2016, service job sheet dated 17/05/2021, email dated 17/01/2022, reply dated 26/07/2022 to the legal notice issued by complainant have been annexed with the complaint.
4. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP. Written statement was filed on behalf of OP, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as the complainant had purchased Sony Bravia TV Model : KLD-48W700C having serial no. 4504493 after detailed demonstration of the features and functions along with explanation of warranty terms and conditions. It has been submitted that Sony India Pvt. Ltd. provides a limited warranty of 1 year on its products from the date of original purchase and the liability strictly lies as per warranty terms and conditions.
5. They have submitted that the complainant has enjoyed the said TV for more than 5 years and had approached the service centre on 22/12/2021 with the complaint of “only green light on”. Job sheet no. 12336836 was issued by the service centre and upon inspection it was found that the “Board” of the said TV needed replacement. As the product was out of warranty, the complainant was informed that the services would be on chargeable basis. As, the cost of repair was very high, OP considering replacement to be more feasible option offered replacement at a special price of Rs.29,737/- with the new model KD-50X75K(with MRP at the rate Rs. 85,900/-). The said offer was communicated through email which was declined by the complainant.
6. It has been further submitted by the OP that as per clause 7 of the warranty terms and conditions(sic) though it is Repair Service Terms and Conditions , they had right to decline repairs/ services in case the product was more than 5 years old. As per clause 7:

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 guaranteed or if the failure is caused due to lightening, ingress of water, fire or if the product has been attended (repair service or modification) by any unauthorised person or if parts are procured by customer from any other source.

7. The complainant was not entitled to free of cost services and OP had right to decline the services as per above mentioned clause of the warranty terms and conditions. The legal notice was duly replied vide reply dated 06/09/2022, where again the complainant was offered the replacement, but the same was declined by the complainant. It has also been submitted that the product bought by the complainant was under 1 year warranty and the complainant has not furnished any document to establish that there was a manufacturing defect. It has been denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part. The complainant was promptly addressed by the service centre. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint.
8. Board resolution dated 07/02/2014 authorising Sh. Priyank Chauhan as Annexure R-1, standard warranty along with repair service terms and conditions as Annexure R-2, legal notice issued by complainant dated 02/08/2022 as Annexure R-3, along with reply  to the said legal notice which is of date 06/09/2022 have been annexed with the Written Statement.
9. Rejoinder to the Written Statement of the OP was filed by the complainant, where, it has been stated that the complainant had similar problem in the month of May, 2021. The TV was repaired upon payment of cost by the service centre. It has been further stated that as per email dated 17/01/2022 it has been stated by OP that they were having difficulty in arranging necessary spare parts and as an alternate solution offered exchange of TV with latest model with special price of Rs. 56,200/-, it was only after the filing of the present complaint, OP had offered exchange price of              Rs. 29,737/-.
10. Evidence by way of Affidavit was filed on behalf of the complainant, where the contents of the complaint have been reaffirmed. OP has got examined Sh. Priyank Chauhan, Authorised Representative, he has also repeated contents of the Written Statement.
11. We have heard the submissions made by the complainant who is appearing in person and Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record. We have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of OP. The complainant is aggrieved by the failure on part of OP to repair the TV manufactured by OP. The purchase of TV on 21/10/2016 and its use for almost 5 years is an admitted fact. The case of the complainant is that OP instead of repairs offered replacement at an exchange price of Rs. 29,737/-.
12. A look is to be made at an email dated 17/01/2022, where it has been mentioned that:

“As explained earlier, upon inspection of the product, it is observed that the main board is faulty and needs to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the product.

We are having difficulty in arranging necessary spare. As an alternate service solution, we have offered you to exchange your TV with our latest model KD-50X75 at a special price of Rs. 56,242/-. You may also choose any other model from our current line-up and let us know, so that we can communicate the special price to you”.

13. Thus, it is evident that, initially the OP had offered the special exchange price of Rs. 56,242/- but later on  in their Reply dated 06/09/2022 to the Legal notice, a special exchange price of Rs.29,737/- has been offered. We are unable to understand on what basis/calculation the OP has quoted the exchange prices, further it is observed that OP has been changing the exchange price arbitrarily. OP has also stated that they were having difficulty in arranging necessary spare part.
14. In the defence OP has also filed the  Repair Service Terms and Conditions, which is not only incomplete but also a mere typed document having No Endorsement or Brand Logo of Sony India Pvt. Ltd.(OP) and the said document was never handed/ communicated over to the complainant at the time of purchase.
15.  During the course of the arguments, it was submitted by the complainant that she had purchased the T.V, keeping in mind the quality and goodwill of the products manufactured by OP and expected a life span of at least 10-12 years and not five years. We are in total agreement with the submissions of the Complainant as the life expectancy of the electronic product like T.V. cannot be expected to be just five years. The OP instead of repairing the T.V. offered replacement on the pretext of non-availability of spare part. OP cannot force the complainant to opt for replacement in order to escalate their sales, this definitely amounts to “unfair trade practice” on the part of the OP(manufacturer). At the same time failure to provide repair services also amounts to deficiency in services. At the same time it cannot be ignored that, the complainant has used the T.V. in dispute for 5 years, considering the depreciated value at Rs.30796/- (50% of the cost of Rs. 61,592/-)

 

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and in the interest of justice, we direct OP to pay Rs.30,796/- (50% of the cost of                 Rs. 61,592/). We further award compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of mental harassment and agony, inclusive of litigation expenses.

 

The order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order, in case of non compliance, OP shall be liable to pay an interest @7% on 45,796/- (Rs.30,796/-+Rs.15,000/-) from the date of order till realisation.

 

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta)                                Member

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

President