By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:

            This complaint is filed by Ramachandran. P. V, S/o. Vaidyanathan, aged 62, Patcha House, Payingattery Village, Nallurnadu Post, Mananthavady against Sony India Private Limited and another as Opposite Parties alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party.

            2.  The Complainant states that the Complainant purchased Sony Bravia TV KDL-40R4788 bearing serial No.4700984 from Dubai in the year 2014 and the same was brought to India.  As per the service conditions provided by the Respondents, any defect with reference to the TV can be informed to the Opposite Party’s service centre.  According to the Complainant on 20.09.2022 the Complainant received one email from Sonyindia.case@sony.com informing him that the Opposite Parties have received a service request for the complaint of the product at Opposite Parties authorized service center M/s. Expert Zone – Calicut for the complaint “no power”.  Based upon the inspection of the product by the Opposite Parties Service Engineer it was observed that Printed Circuit Board (Main Board) needs to be replaced for satisfactory working of the set and that there is difficulty in getting the required parts for the Complainant’s television model and assured that as alternate solution they offered exchange of the TV with Sony Bravia KD-43X75K(MRP 69,900) at a special price of Rs.43,192/- including taxes.  According to the Complainant, he sent reply to the Email on 20.09.2022 itself enquiring whether he could have a 55” TV instead of 43X75K as offered by the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant states that on 26.09.2022 the Opposite Parties contacted the Complainant through Email and offered the exchange of Complainant’s TV with Sony Bravia KD 55 X 85K (MRP Rs.1,49,900) at a special price of Rs.74,992/- inclusive of taxes.  The Complainant accepted the offer and sent Email confirming the same and requested the Opposite Parties for details of bank account for remitting the amount.  Later on 10.10.2022 the Complainant received another Email requesting for original Purchase Invoice of Complainant’s TV to process the exchange.  According to the Complainant he informed that Opposite Parties that he had lost the original invoice when the TV was given for service and then the Opposite Parties informed that it is not an issue.  The TV transported from Dubai to India shows that the Complainant had proper documents regarding the same which was lost during the period of time.  The Opposite Parties replied to the Email dated 10.10.2022 on 11.11.2022 stating that the documents are mandatory for the exchanges provided to the customer.  According to the Complainant the acts of Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their side and hence the complaint praying to direct the Opposite Parties to credit the amount of Rs.36,808/- with interest and for other reliefs.

            3.  Upon notice Opposite Parties entered into appearance and filed their version contenting that as per records, the Complainant had purchased Sony Bravia TV model KLD-40R4788 having Serial No.4700984 in 2014 from Dubai and Opposite Party No.1 provided 1 year warranty from the date of original purchase and the liability will lie strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of warranty.  The Opposite Parties contented that the Complainant after using the TV for almost more than 8 years approached the service centre on 20.09.2022 raising issue of “No Power” in the said TV.  The service centre inspected the TV and found that the “main Board “of the TV need to be replaced and since the product belongs to outside India, Parts were not available with them and the same was informed to the Complainant.  It is also informed that since the warranty period is over the services will be on chargeable basis.  The Complainant was also informed that if the parts are not available, the service of the old model TV is also not possible and the service could be carried out only subject to availability of parts.  Opposite Party stated that the part was not available and the same was informed to the Complainant.  It is also informed that the service of an old model is not reliable.  Since the cost of repair/replacement of part was high, Opposite Party offered to replace the TV set with a new model No.KD-43X85K at a special price of Rs.74,992/- wherein the actual price was Rs.1,49,900/-.  But the Complainant had not accepted the offer.  The Opposite Party contented that as per the warranty clause, if the product is more than 5 years old, the Company has the right to decline repair/service.  As per the warranty clause the Complainant has no right to ask for free of cost services for an old model TV.  According to Opposite Parties, the Complainant raised unreasonable demands and later approached the Commission by filing the complaint.  The complaint is raised after 8 years of usage and there is no evidence to show any inherent defect for the product.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

            4.  Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 from the side of the Complainant.  Exts.B1 and B2 are marked from the side of Opposite Parties.

            5.  The following are the questions to be analysed in this case to derive into an inference of the facts.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties.
2. If proved, Compensation and costs for which the Complainant is entitled for.

6.  Heard both parties and perused the records.

7.  The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a SONY BRAVIA TV KDL-40R4788 bearing Serial No.4700984 from Dubai in the year 2014 and the same was brought to India and as per service provided by the Opposite Parties, any defect with reference to the TV can be informed to the Opposite Parties service Centre and hence the Complainant requested for the service of the product to the Opposite Parties on 20.09.2022.  The Complainant received an email from the Opposite Parties that upon inspection of the product by the Service Engineer, it is seen that the printed circuit Board (main Board) needs replacement and there is difficulty in getting the required parts for the said model of TV.  According to the Complainant the representative of the Opposite Parties informed as an alternate service solution and offered Sony BRAVIA 43 X 75K (MRP 69,900) at a special price of Rs.43,192/- including taxes.  Complainant enquired as to whether they have 55’ TV instead of 43 x 75K.  On 26^th September, Opposite Parties accepted the request and offered to exchange his TV with Sony BRAVIA KD 55x85K (MRP Rs.1,49,900) at a special price of Rs.74,992/- inclusive of taxes.  The said offer was accepted by the Complainant and requested the Opposite Parties for the bank details to deposit money.  But on 10.10.2022, Opposite Party had put forth a new clause that the original purchase invoice of the TV is required to process the exchange which is mandatory document for all exchanges.  According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties failed to service the product at the Authorised service centre and Opposite Party No.1 made an offer for alternate solution to exchange the TV for a special price and the Opposite Parties failed to comply the offer made to the Complainants which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The documents produced by the Complainant shows the discussion and offers made by the Parties.

8.  The Opposite Parties had produced Ext.B2, copy of warranty and the warranty conditions which show the warranty will be valid only when the warranty card and the original invoice are presented together for service.  It is also states that Sony reserves the right to decline warranty service if the above documents are not presented or if the information contained is incomplete or the warranty card is found tampered.

9.  In the present case the TV was purchased from Dubai during 2014.  The case of the Complainant is that there was an offer to exchange of the TV since the defective part is not available, which was accepted by the Complainant.  As per the request of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties were ready to exchange the defective product with a model demanded by the Complainant for which they have asked for the purchase invoice, which is not available with the Complainant.  The Complainant states that the attitude of the Opposite Party has caused mental agony and the above action amounts to deficiency of service from the side of the Opposite Parties.

10.  In this case apart from the email copies produced by the complainant no other documents are there to prove deficiency of service from the side of the Opposite Parties.

11.  From Ext.A2, letter dated 26.09.2022 it is seen that the Opposite Party offered to exchange the Complainant’s TV with SONY BRAVIA KD 55X85K (MRP Rs.149900) at a special price of Rs.74,992/- inclusive of taxes.  In reply dated 26.09.2022 the Complainant stated that “I accept the offer.  Kindly inform me when the payment to be made and the bank a/c details”.  On 10/10 the Opposite Party sent Ext.A3 mail in which it is stated that “As per your confirmation to exchange you television with Sony BRAVIA KD-55X85K (MRP Rs.1,49,900/-) at  a special price of Rs.74,992/- inclusive of taxes.  This has been considered as a very special case.  This offer is directly from Sony India and process for the exchange we need original purchase invoice of the product.  We would request you to share the copy of the original purchase invoice of the product for further assistance in this regard”. By Ext.A4, the Complainant sent an email on 10/10, stating that the proposal was started with the Opposite Parties Calicut office stating the unavailability of the invoice of old TV.  Accepting the request of the Complainant without the invoice of the old TV, the offer was made by the Company.  Which is accepted by the Complainant and asked the bank details to remit the amount for which no reply is seen sent by the Opposite Party.  The case of the Complainant is that after offering the exchange, knowing that no original invoice is available the Opposite Party cannot put forth the condition of producing the invoice.  Under Ext.A5, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that, if the purchase invoice is not available, the offer will be withdrawn by the Opposite Party.

12.  The Complainant had produced Ext.A1 to A5 which merely shows that the Complainant had made some discussion with the Opposite Parties.  There is no evidence to show that any payment is made to the Opposite Parties and there is no evidence to derive into a conclusion that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice to the Complainant.

13.  During the argument, the Complainant had submitted a decision of the DCDRC, Ernakulam that Manufacturer failing to provide spare parts required for the product for proper functioning of the same amounts to unfair trade practice which has no relevance with reference to the case in hand. In this case the Complainant accepted the exchange offer accepting the fact that the part is not available since the TV is of an old model one.  Even according to the Complainant he purchased the same in 2014. Hence, we find that the Complainant had not proved Point No.1 in his favour and hence there is no merit in the complaint.

14.  Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Commission had not considered Point No.2 in this case.

Accordingly Consumer Case is dismissed without Costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 16^th day of December 2024.

Date of Filing:- 11.11.2022.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Ramachandran. P. V.                                            Pensioner.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Copy of Email Communication.              Dt:20.09.2022.

A2.                  Copy of Email Communication.             

A3.                  Copy of Email Communication. 

A4.                  Copy of Email Communication. 

A5.                  Copy of Email Communication. 

A6.                  Copy of Email Communication. 

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

B1.                  Copy of Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of Sony

India Private Limited.

B2.                  Copy of Standard Warranty.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-