BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.37 of 2017
Date of Instt. 13.02.2017
Date of Decision: 28.01.2019
Bhupinder Singh son of S. Davinder Singh, resident of Gali No.4, Ward No.15, Randhawa Colony, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd, Through its Managing Director/CEO, Regd. Office: A-31 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Through its Authorized Signatory, 3rd Floor, Adarsh Mall, Plot No.50, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-2, Chandigarh-160002.
3. Signa Marketing (Service), Sony Authorized Service Centre, 178, Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Robin Budhiraja, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 to 3.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has purchased one Sony Bravia TV, Model No.KDL-32EX550, Serial No.3050139 from abroad and the complainant was told that the product i.e. Sony Bravia TV covers warranty internationally as per the Sony company. The OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the Sony products and OP No.2 is registered office of OP No.1 and the OP No.3 is the authorized service center of OP No.1.
2. That on 07.06.2016, the said LCD of the complainant was started giving picture problem and the complainant approached OP No.3, the authorized service centre of the OP No.1 and apprised regarding the same to the officer concern and officer concern of OP No.3 after inspection, told the complainant the LCD Panel of Sony LCD is to be changed and the complainant was also told that about Rs.13,082/-, which includes unit price, along with VAT and service charges, will the charged. After obtaining the consent of the complainant, the LCD Panel was changed with a new one and the complainant was told that LCD Panel comes with warranty of six months and the product of the complainant was handed over to the complainant on 21.06.2016 after receipt of Rs.13,082/-. On 15.07.2016, the product again started giving problem and there were intermittent lines in LCD. The complainant on the very next day i.e. 16.07.2016 approached OP No.3 and again apprised the officer concern regarding the problem and officer concern after checking the LCD TV, issued job card bearing No.J61692279 to the complainant and the complainant was told that the problem will be rectified very soon as the LCD Panel, which was changed, vide Job No.J61354252 is under warranty. Thereafter, the complainant time and again visited the OP No.3 requesting the officer concern to rectify the defect in the LCD Panel of Sony Bravia TV, but no satisfactory reply was accorded to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved from the conduct of the OP No.3, the complainant moved emails to the OP No.1 and 2 and the complainant received one email on 10.09.2016 from OP No.1 stating that they will respond to the complaint expeditiously. Thereafter, the complainant again received one email on 03.10.2016 from OP No.1 stating that “we are having difficulty in getting the necessary part (Display Panel). As an alternate solution to retain you as our valued customer, we offer to exchange your Sony KDL-32EX550 with any Bravia TV of your choice from our current range at 75% of the maximum retails price of new model”. The complainant was shocked to read said email, as at the time of changing said LCD Panel with a new panel, the complainant was given warranty of six months, but the new LCD Panel started giving trouble within one month. The complainant again approached OP No.3 requesting the officer concern to change the LCD Panel with a new panel or to refund the amount of the LCD, but rather listening to the grievances of the complainant, the official concern of OP No.3 threatened the complainant to that they won't be replaced the said part. Thereafter, the said LCD TV was not delivered to the complainant, till today and the LCD TV of the complainant is still in possession of the OP No.3.
3. That still the problem with the LCD Panel of the complainant persisted after changing the same with the new panel, but he problem has not been rectified till date and admittedly it had certain manufacturing defects which could not be rectified in spite of being repaired and after feeling aggrieved from the acts of the OP, the complainant also served a legal notice dated 10.11.2016, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and further requested that a direction may be given to the OP to replace the LCD TV of the complainant with a new LCD TV or to refund the price amount of LCD TV and further OPs be directed to return the price of LCD Panel i.e. Rs.13,082/- and further OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, all the OPs appeared and filed joint written statement, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that as per the records of the company, the complainant has purchased one Sony Bravia LCD from abroad in the year 2012. It is submitted that the Sony India Pvt. Ltd provides warranty to only those products, which are marketed by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. In case if the product is purchased from anywhere abroad (outside India), in such a scenario, the product cannot be covered under warranty. The copy of the warranty terms is annexed and further averred that the complainant approached the OP No.3 on 07.06.2016 raising an issue with the picture of the said LCD. The complainant approached at a stage when the warranty period of the said LCD was already expired long back. The warranty period of LCD is normally for 1 year, but in the present case, the complainant approached OP No.3 after satisfactory using the LCD for almost 4 years. It is further submitted that although OPs have no liability towards the complainant as the LCD in question was purchased from abroad. But considering the complainant to be a valuable customer, the OP No.2 duly attended the complainant and inspected the LCD and Display Panel needs replacement and accordingly, the complainant un-disputedly accepting the fact that the warranty with respect to the said LCD was already expired on two factors, firstly due to the expiry of the warranty period and secondly, that the product was not marketed by Sony India Pvt. Ltd and approved the said estimated cost of Rs.13,082/- and paid the same towards the replacement of the display panel and it is further submitted that the panel was replaced with new one and the said LCD was then handed over to the complainant in proper working condition and upto the complainant's satisfaction. However, the OP No.3 arranged the panel with great difficulty due to the fact that the LCD model was an older model and at the parts are usually not available easily. But in the present case OP No.3 considering the complainant to be valuable customer made best efforts to resolve the issue with respect to the said LCD. It is further submitted that the complainant again approached OP No.3 on 16.07.2016 raising an issue of intermittent lines in the LCD. This time also the complainant approached OP No.3 at a stage when the warranty period was already expired. The OP No.3 again inspected the LCD and observed that the panel needs to be replaced, but due to old model, services are usually not very reliable and this fact was very well communicated to the complainant and as such, due to the short supply of part and considering the fact that services for the older models are not reliable, the OP No.3 gave an offer to the complainant. The OP No.3 offered the complainant to buy a new LED at a discount of 25% on MRP. Moreover, it was further conveyed by OP No.3 that the OPs are ready to adjust the cost of panel i.e. Rs.13,082/- previously charged from the complainant in addition to the discount of 25% on MRP of any new LED panel. However, the complainant refused to accept the said offer given by OP No.3 and surprisingly even refused to collect the LCD in question from OP No.3. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the LCD by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the panel of the said LCD was changed and again LCD was brought to service centre and found the panel was again become defective and the LCD is still lying with the OP No.3. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the complaint of the complainant, the attorney of the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA along with some documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. After considering the over all circumstances as put before us, we find that the purchase of Sony Bravia TV by the complainant from abroad, manufactured by OP No.1 and further, it is also admitted that on 07.06.2016 some problems was occurred in the said LCD TV and accordingly, the same was brought to the service centre of OP No.1 i.e. OP No.3 and admittedly, the panel of the LCD was changed on charges basis and regarding that Invoice/Job Sheet Ex.C-1 is available on the file, wherein the charges of the panel was obtained by the OP No.3 i.e. Rs.13,082/- and it is also established and admitted by the OP that the same problem was occurred within one month from the change of the panel i.e. on 07.06.2016 and again accrued the same problem on 16.07.2016 and regarding that, service job sheet issued by the OP is Ex.C-2 and till today, the LCD is lying with the OP No.3 for want of change the panel of the said LCD and complainant alleged that when the panel of the LCD was changed and six months guarantee was given to the complainant, but the same was became defective within one month and as such, the OPs are required to change the said LCD panel or if not available, then it is clear cut case of manufacturing defect in the said LCD and at that eventuality, the complainant is entitled to get replace the said LCD or to get return its price with price of the panel already installed with the LCD as well as compensation and litigation expenses.
9. No doubt, the OPs has not denied any fact as alleged by the complainant in the complaint rather the OPs took a plea that the LCD in question was purchased by the complainant from abroad in the year 2012 and whatsoever product are marketed by Sony Company, outside India, the said product cannot be covered under the warranty and further alleged that the product of the complainant is not within warranty because the warranty is only one year and the first complaint made by the complainant after about 4 years from the date of purchase and third plea taken by the OPs that the LCD being an old model and its parts are not easily available and due to that, an offer has been given to the complainant to get replace the said old LCD with the new one after getting 25% discount on MRP. This offer was given by the OP to the complainant, vide email Ex.C-4 dated 12.09.2016.
10. Now, we have to consider whether there is any deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Admittedly, the complainant when got replaced the LCD panel first time, did not claim that his product is within one year rather he voluntarily paid the cost of the said LCD Panel i.e. Rs.13,082/-, vide Job Sheet/Invoice Ex.C-1 dated 07.06.2016. It is also established on the file by way of document Ex.C-2 second service job sheet dated 16.07.2016 that the said panel was again became defective within one month, now question arise the said LCD Panel was purchased by the complainant from India not from abroad and the said panel obviously come within the warranty of six months as alleged by the complainant and the same is not rebutted by the OP by placing on the file any document that the parts are not come under the warranty. So, from this angle, we can accept the plea of the complainant that the LCD Panel, which was purchased by the complainant in India and the same is within warranty and it become defective within one month, but the OP alleging that the LCD is old model and its parts are not available. This reply of the OP is obviously a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
11. As per our version, whenever any such like world known company manufactured any product and marketed in India or in the international market and that company must be take care to make available its part till the estimated life of the said product. If the life of the product assessed by the company is 15 years, then its parts must be available for the customer through out 15 years, but in this case, after 4 years the parts are not available like LCD Panel, if parts are not available, then why such like product is manufactured by the company. So, we are of the considered opinion that the company must provide parts of the product to the customer, but in this case, the OP has flatly refused that the LCD panel is not available. So, under these circumstances, we find that the OPs are apparently committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and thus, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
12. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to make available the part of the LCD i.e. panel or any other parts, which is required for smooth running of the LCD. Repaired the LCD, Installed the part whatsoever, free of cost and return the LCD to the complainant in running condition within one month from the date of receipt of the copy and if the OPs failed to return the said product within stipulated period as stated above, then the OPs will liable to refund the price of the LCD along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase, till realization and OPs are directed to compensate the complainant for causing harassment by paying Rs.20,000/- and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
28.01.2019 Member President
