Date of filing:22.5.2014.
Date of disposal:2.12.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014.
C.C.No.120 of 2014
Between:
Gangisetti Umashankar, S/o Babu Rao, Hindu, 35 years, Advocate, R/o D.No.21-10/1-112, Mutyalampadu, Teachers Colony, Vijayawada.
.… Complainant.
AND
1. Sony India Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Authorized Person, Regd., Office:A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.
2. Tirumala Music Center (P) Ltd., Rep., by its Manager, D.No.40-1-21/3, Ground Floor, Surya Towers, M.G.Road, Vijayawada.
.… Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 25.11.2014, in the presence of complainant appearing in person and Sri G.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant purchased Sony LED 42” TV from the 2nd opposite party on 11.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.78,000/-. After taking delivery of the said TV the complainant noticed that on Carton Box it was mentioned that the TV was LCD. Immediately the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party and questioned about the same. They informed that the TV set delivered to him is LED. Believing the same the complainant started using the said TV set. During its usage the complainant noticed that there is manufacturing defect in the said TV set and it was gradually lost its display and only audio remains working. The complainant informed the said fact to the 2nd opposite party on 9.2.2014. On receipt of the said complaint the 2nd opposite party deputed a technician, who opened the TV set and opined that it is a manufacturing defect and the product will be replaced within 7 working days. Thereafter inspite of repeated requests of the complainant the opposite parties postponing to replace the defective TV set with new one. Under these circumstances the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite party to replace the defective TV set with a new one and pay damages or to refund the cost of the TV set. The opposite party acknowledged the said notice but failed to comply the demand of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.
2. The 2nd opposite party remained absent and the 1st opposite party filed its version.
The version of the 1st opposite party is in brief:
The 1st opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that as per the records of the opposite party the complainant had purchased a Sony LED TV on 11.10.2013. A Copy of warranty terms and conditions provided by the 1st opposite party to the complainant and as per terms and conditions of warranty provided by the 1st opposite party clearly states that Sony India Pvt., Ltd., warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects for a period of one year from the time of its original purchase. This non-transferable warranty is only for him, the first end user. If during this period of warranty the product proves to be defective due to improper material or workmanship, Sony Service Centers/authorized Service Centers will repair the product free of charge subject to the terms and conditions. Only warranty is provided on the product and not the guarantee. As per warranty terms Clause 8 of the warranty the warranty shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening, ingress of water, fire or acts of god, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control and/or any damage caused due to tampering of the product by an unauthorized agent. If there is any external damage to the product due to the above mentioned reasons the warranty is rendered void. The complainant approached the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party for the first time on 11.2.2014 after using LED without any problem for period of four months with the complaint. The LED was inspected by the representatives of the service centre. Subsequent to which the complainant was informed that the display panel of the LED was externally damaged and needed to be replaced. Cases of external damage are not covered by the warranty provided by the 1st opposite party. Therefore a repair estimate was provided by the service centre to the complainant for his approval in order to carry out the necessary repairs in the LED. But the complainant refused to approve the estimate. The opposite parties have again and again requested the complainant to approve the repair estimate in order to avoid any further damage to the LED. But the complainant has refused to approve the repair estimate and demanded for replacement and got issued a legal notice dated 2.4.2014 to harass the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party gave a reply dated 10.4.2014 to the legal notice of the complainant requesting him to approve the repair estimate provided by him. The opposite parties are not liable to provide free of cost services on the LED only during the warranty period when the defect has arisen due to improper material or workmanship. If once the warranty period expires the opposite parties are not liable to provide free of cost repair and the replacement of the product. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. On behalf of the 1st opposite party Meena Bose an authorized Signatory filed her affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 Ex.B.4.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant in not replacing the defective LED TV with new one?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased LED 42” TV from the 2nd opposite party on 11.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.78,000/- under Ex.A.1. According to the complainant during its usage he noticed that the said TV gradually lost its display and only audio remains working. He informed the said fact to the 2nd opposite party on 9.2.2014 and the opposite party deputed a technician and he opened the said T.V. and opined that there is a manufacturing defect and the product will be replaced within 7 days but inspite of repeated requests of the complainant the opposite parties are postponing to replace the defect TV with new one. The complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.A.2 = Ex.B.3 dated 2.4.2014 demanding the opposite parties to replace the defective said TV with new one and pay damages or return the cost of the TV set. The opposite parties got issued reply notice under Ex.A.5 = Ex.B.4 dated 10.4.2014 stating that on physical inspection of the product by their Engineer the display panel of the said TV was found to be physically damaged due to external cause. As they mentioned in their warranty terms and conditions Ex.A.9 = Ex.B.2 the free service is not covered under warranty.
7. As per the documents we noted that LED 42” TV was purchased by the complainant on 11.10.2013. After four months of its purchase the said TV lost its display and only audio remains working. On several requests of the complainant the opposite party failed to replace the said TV. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice on 2.4.2014 for that the opposite parties gave reply stating that warranty is provided on the product not the guarantee and says that as per warranty terms and conditions Clause 8 this warranty shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening, ingress of water, fire or acts of god, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control and/or any damage caused due to tampering of the product by an unauthorized agent. The complainant was provided warranty card and these clauses are not applied to the TV set of the complainant as it was gradually lost its display and only audio remains working within short period of four months from its purchase within warranty period. That does not meant as external damage. The TV supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant is defective one and caused problems. The opposite parties failed to rectify the defect in the TV set or replace it with new one and more over asked the complainant to accept for repair charges. The contention of the opposite parties is that if warranty period expires the opposite parties are not liable repairs at free of cost and the replacement of the product. But the warranty period is not expired. The 1st opposite party being manufacturer of defective TV and 2nd opposite party being authorized dealer failed to replace the defective TV with new one or refund the cost of the TV to the complainant. Therefore we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not replacing the defective TV with new one or refund its cost to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties are liable to replace defective TV set with new one and the complainant is entitled for the same.
POINT No.3:-
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties jointly & severally are directed to replace the defective TV LED 42” with new one or refund the cost of same set Rs.78,000/- and to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month. If the opposite parties failed to replace or refund the amount of cost of TV set of Rs.78,000/- within the stipulated period the awarded amount carries interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Rest of the claims of the complainant are dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 2nd day of December, 2014.
PRESIDENT(FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:
P.W.1 G.Umashankar D.W.1 Meena Bose
Complainant, 1st opposite party
(by affidavit) (by affidavit)
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A.1 11.10.2013 Tax invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party for Rs.78,000/-.
Ex.A.2 02.04.2014 Legal notice.
Ex.A.3 02.04.2014 Two postal receipts.
Ex.A.4 . . Acknowledgement.
Ex.A.5 10.04.2014 Reply letter from the 1st opposite party office at Chennai.
Ex.A.6 15.04.2014 Reply notice from the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A.7 . . Photograph showing the TV company and model.
Ex.A.8 . . Photograph.
Ex.A.9 . . Warranty card.
On behalf of the opposite party:
Ex.B.1 04.07.2011 Photocopy of certified true copy of the resolution adopted
by the Board of Directors of the opposite party.
Ex.B.2 . . Specimen copy of warranty card.
Ex.B.3 02.04.2014 Photocopy of Legal notice issued by the complainant.
Ex.B.4 10.04.2014 Reply letter from the 1st opposite party office at Chennai.
PRESIDENT(FAC)
