Tripura

West Tripura

CC/19/2015

Sri. Subhas Bhattacharjee, Retd. Judicial Officer, Gr. 1. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

self

04 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  19 of 2015

Sri Subhas Bhattacharjee,
Retd. Judicial Officer, Gr-1,
Quarter No. IV/7, 
Judges Quarter Complex,
Nazirpukur Par, Krishnanagar, 
Agartala, Tripura West.        .............Complainant.
    

         ______VERSUS______

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 
A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi,
Pin- 110044.

2. Giriraj Furniture,
Sankar Chowmuhani,
Krishnanagar, Agartala,
Tripura West.

3. Sony Service Centre,
G.R. Service 6A, Mantri Bari Road,
Agartala, Tripura West.              .........Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant    : Complainant in person.
                  
                                                         
For the Opposite Party    : Sri Amritlal Saha,
                  Sri Kajal Nandi and 
                  Sri Abheek Saha,
                  Advocates.

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  04.01.16

J U D G M E N T

        Petitioner Subhash Bhattacharjee is a retired Judicial Officer. He filed complaint against the Sony India Pvt. Ltd.  and its service centre and seller of the TV. The complainant purchased the TV on 22.11.11 and paid Rs.64,900/-. The TV had no problem and was working till 13.10.14. After about 3 years there was display problem. So, he made contact with the service centre and it was informed that the picture tube was out of order and it is to be replaced. The service centre demanded 22,000/- for replacement. Petitioner did not like to pay it as because within a short period about 3 years the picture tube damaged though warranty period is for one year but it is not reasonable therefore, the picture tube is to be replaced by the company.  
    
2.        O.P. appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. O.P. No.1 filed written statement stating that the complainant without any sort of defect  enjoyed the TV for about 3 years. The display problem issue is raised only on 13.10.14. Display panel was found to be fault. A one year warranty period already expired on 21.11.12 repairing could be done only on charge basis and petitioner is to pay the charge to  Rs.21,481/-  for replacement. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties we shall now decide the following points.
        (i) Whether there was any deficiency of service by the O.P. No.1?
        (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation?
        
4.        Petitioner produced the various communication made with the Sony India Ltd, the vouchers, advertisement paper, warranty, also examined one witness i.e., the complainant himself.
        
5.        On the other hand O.P. produced the authority of letter, Board resolution, warranty, also examined one witness.
        
6.        On the basis of all the evidence as produced by the parties and also written argument given by both the parties we shall decide the above points.
                            FINDINGS
7.        It is already an established fact that the TV was purchased  3 years back and functioning defect comes to light after 2 years 11 months on 13.10.14. It is also admitted and established that warranty was for one year and it was very much known to the petitioner at the time of purchase. The case filed before us on 04.02.15. If the date of purchase is taken in to consideration then it is time barred but the defective matter comes to the light on 13.10.14 and thereafter case filed within 2 years. So, the claim is not time barred. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit after expiry of the warranty period of one year. The petitioner was very much aware that the product had the warranty of one year. Within this one year the product is to replaced in case it fails to function.  But after one yer whether the liability will go to the company that is prime question. It is argued by the O.P. No.1 that the complainant has no complaint about manufacturing defect or other defects for 2 years 11 months. After that period complainant is to pay for repairing  charge for any sort of defect found. Complainant on the other hand argued that there is implied condition that the goods shall be functional. The implied warranty should be for reasonable time.  What is 'reasonable time' not clearly stated in the sales of goods Act, 1930. When the manufacturer clearly stated that reasonable time is one year then it can not be extended beyond that period on the wish of the purchaser. Purchaser can purchase same with one year warranty and if not satisfied he can purchase another brand available in the market. After purchasing a product with one year warranty he can not get the benefit in respect of replacement or repairing free of cost after the warranty period on the plea of reasonable time. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the warranty period can not be extended on the wish of the consumer beyond one year. Consumer is to pay for the service after one year. A product has no permanent life. There is a possibility of damage of every product. The manufacturer can take into account about reducing the repairing cost if the product is damaged within short period. This consideration only can be made by the manufacturer for maintaining  their good will. The product has no indefinite life. So, in case of any defect after about 3 years it can be repaired on payment of charge in the service centre or by mechanic for concessional price.  The O.P. has no deficiency of service. But it can show a better attitude for maintaining its good will as the picture tube damaged within the period of 3 years. This gesture which we can not enforce as the O.P. has no deficiency of service. Petitioner therefore, is not entitled to get any compensation. In our considered view petitioner case has no merit and therefore, this petition stands dismissed. Parties are to bear their own cost.   
        
8.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.