Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/165

Satish kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony india - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL commission,

WEST DISTRICT, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI

 

C.C.  NO.  165/16

IN THE MATTER OF:-

 

SATISH KUMAR CHAWLA                                        COMPLAINANT                                                 

 

VERSUS

 

 

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER                    OPPOSITE PARTIES                                          

 

 

Coram:-

                                                                                        

1. SONICA MEHROTRA (PRESIDENT)
2. RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)
3. ANIL KOUSHAL (MEMBER)

Date of Institution:28.11.2017

Judgment reserved on:22.09.2022

Date of Decision:06.10.2022

 

ORDER

1. That the complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows: -

 

1. That the present complaint relates to SONY Bravia LCD (TV) Model No. KLV26S550A Serial No.6156594 was purchased by the Complainant in October 2009 for a sum of Rs.29,900/- only from Opposite Party No - 1(OP).

 

2. It is submitted that the opposite party no 1 is a company of international repute and sells world-class products all across the globe. The products of the opposite party no. 1 are not just the best sellers in India but also in several other countries

 

3. The complainant purchased the television on 15.10.2009 and he approached the Ops after the warranty period has expired. The details of the television with regard to purchasing done by the complainant and complaints/problems raised and attended by the OP are as follows :

 

1. Sony BRAVIA KLV-265550A INS
2. Model no: 18141500
3. Serial no: 6156594
4. Date Of Purchase : 15/10/2009
5. Purchase value: Rs. 29,900/
6. Mr SK Chawla//9571278351
7. Complaint No. 143152616, Date: 20/12/2014, ASC: Jolly Electronics World
8. Symptom: Automatically Goes Off-Randomly
9. Repair Action: BTZ MOUNT suspected (A1663500A),
10. Estimate approved: Rs. 8685/
11. Customer paid: 169/-
12. Date of Delivery after repair: 13/01/2015
13. 150133490, Date: 15/01/2015, ASC: Jolly Electronics World.
14. Symptom: int. no sound & no picture, Repair Action: B12 MOUNT suspected
15. (A1663500A)
16. Estimate approved: R1.5348/-, part supply end
17. CS offer given to the customer by ASC, Customer refused to accept
18. Letter sent to the customer through RCC, Delivered: 12/02/2015
19. 150583566,
20. Date: 08/03/2015
21. ASC: Jelly Electronics World
22. Symptom: No Audio/video- no video and sound issue
23. Cl offer already given to cut the same issue, the customers

 

4. It submitted that the case regarding television, wherein all three job sheets raised were relating the same problem. OP no. 1 vide its letter dated 10.03.2015 informed the Complainant as under:
   1. "MAIN BOARD NEEDS TO BE REPLACED FOR SATISFACTORY WORKING OF THE TV AND WE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY IN GETTING THE NECESSARY PART. THEREFORE, WE OFFER TO EXCHANGE THE OLD TV AT 75% OF THE MAXIMUM RETAIL PRICE (MRP) OF THE NEW TV WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE WILL RETAIN THE COMPLETE DEFECTIVE SET AS PART OF THE EXCHANGE OFFER."

 

2. Details of follow-up after 10.03.2015 by the Complainant with the OP after receipt of this exchange offer are given above.

 

5. When the complainant approached the opposite parties for repairs to the television, the OP informed the complainant that necessary part was in short supply, hence as a gesture of goodwill, the opposite party offered an exchange vide letter dated 10^th March 2015 but due to the unavoidable circumstances, the complainant not could avail of the said offer which is valid only till 17 March 2015. The same has been reiterated in letters dated march 2015 and 14" May 2015 exchanged between the parties.

 

6. The above-said letter dated 10.03.2015 was received by the Complainant in the late hours of 11.03.2015 and on the same day the reply was sent by the Complainant vide letter dated 11.03.2015 by Speed Post on 12.03.2015. Both letters dated 11.03.2015 and Postal Receipt towards proof of its dispatch by Speed Post on 12.03 2015. Thus, Complainant gave the immediate and fastest response to their letter dated 10.03.2015.

 

7. The OP closed the Complainant's case by the OP vide its letter dated 14.05.2015 in an illegal, and arbitrary manner and the OP is liable for their deficiency in services viz. being unable to provide requisite part at its end since the sale of the LCD. The OPs undoubtedly adopted Unfair Trade Practices as well as harassed the Complainant and his family members. Further Arbitrariness and illegal closure of the Complainant's case by the OP vide letter dated 14.05.2015 is further substantiated from the fact that OP did not mention anything about closure of the case on the already lapsed date i.e. 17.03.2015 in their subsequent letter dated 25.03.2015.

 

8. The complainant Vide letter dated 11.03.2015, also requested the OP no. -1 to "Review their Offer" as the offer of 75% of MRP of new TV in addition to discarding and returning of old LCD costing Rs 29,900/ due to the deficiency on the part of the OP viz non-availability of requisite part and moreover when the old LCD has not run its Normal Expected Life was totally unjustified.

 

1. The matter for Review of the unjustified Offer was also followed up by the Complainant with OP in all his subsequent letters/reminders dated 29.03.2015, 11.05.2015, 18 05.2015, 08.06.2015, 29.06.2015, 16.07 2015, 11 08.2015 and E-Mail dated 11.08.2015. Legal Notice dated 23.11.2015 was also sent through Advocate Shri V.K. Chopra to OP No-1.

 

10. The Complainant states that except giving only reference to Complainant's letters dated 11.03.2015 and 11.05.2015 in their letters dated 25.03.2015 and 14.05.2015 respectively, OP no.-1 did not send any response to the other letters, E-Mail including the Legal Notice dated 23.11.2015 and thus failed to follow the basic rule of the customer service which provides for at least sending the acknowledgement of each & every complaint/letter besides E-Mail and Legal Notice Moreover, OP did not respond a single word to the repeated requests of the Complainant invariably made in all the above said letters for "Review of their Offer" which was totally unjustified. As such, OP was utmost negligent in customer service on all the fronts in the Complainant's case.

 

11. Due to their utmost negligence and action/Monopolistic Approach in the matter, the Complainant who is a Senior Citizen having undergone Open Heart Surgery and his family consisting Iwo Mentally Retarded and Physically Handicapped Children not only suffered much Harassment and Mental Agony but further financial losses towards Payment of rental charges amounting to Rs.2500/- for a continuance of Cable TV connection without watching LCD since 18.12.2014, The Complainant has also incurred expenses towards sending all the above said letters by Speed Post/ Registered Post, E-Mail and Legal Notice etc.

 

12. In fact, the Complainant has constrained to approach this Hon'ble Forum to grant relief under this Act to fight against the multinational companies like the OP in respect of non-providing of Spare Part of Product adopting Unfair Trade Practices and more over were totally negligent and utmost customer services for neither responding to any of repeated letters/reminders and Legal Notice taking any appropriate action address the complaints of the Complainant any point of time. The complainant was with other alternatives except for approach this Hon'ble Forum seeking justice against Monopolistic approach by the Multinational company like the OP. wherein the complainant sought the following Prayers against the Opposite Parties:

• Provide the new TV set of the same cost price as the company has repeatedly confirmed that due to non-availability of requisite part, LCD could not be repaired perfectly OR pay an amount equivalent to the cost of the Complainant's LCD and
• Reimbursement of financial losses of Rs.2,500/- towards payment of rental charges for a continuance of Cable TV connection without watching LCD since 15.12.2014 and
• Damages of Rs. 50,000/- for the Harassment/sufferings/Mental Agony faced by the Complainant and his family members which includes his two Mentally Retarded and Physically Handicapped Children and the Complainant being a Senior Citizen having undergone Open Heart Surgery alongwith cost of litigation

 

2. After hearing the arguments on admission, the present complaint was admitted and accordingly notice was issued to the OP on 1-03-2016 returnable on 25-04-2016. Accordingly, OP No. 1 appeared, filed vakalatnama and took an adjournment for filing a reply, whereas OP No.2 despite service did not appear, hence proceeded exparte on 25-04-2016. On 17/04/2017 OP No.1 filed a written statement taking the following preliminary objection: -

 

1. The present complaint was absolutely frivolous and devoid of any cause of action and should be dismissed as an abuse of the process of this Commission. The complaint was totally vexatious, vindictive and involved. In fact, there are no deficiency services or unfair trade practices on part of opposite parties that necessitate the present complaint. The opposite party has provided the best services to the complainant without any prejudice. The grievance of the complainant is a complete sham and ridden with falsehood. Despite the subject television being out of warranty, the opposite parties have provided the complainant with excellent post sales services and his grievances have been addressed. Hence the present complaint for replacing the television and demanding compensation subject to the facts makes the complaint baseless, unsupported and infructuous

 

2. Due to the quality of the products of opposite party no 1, it enjoys an excellent market reputation. The complainant purchased the television on 15.10.2009 and has used it for years without any complaints whatsoever and the only time he had approached the Ops was after the warranty period has expired. It is submitted that he has been provided with excellent after-sales services. It is a matter of fact that the complainant has been negligent use of the television and has been putting a lot of stress on the television not warranted under usage conditions as per the user manual. It is submitted that the opposite parties have provided services to the complainant even after the warranty period has expired.

 

3. Due to the worldwide customer base, the opposite party no 1 has one of the most remarkable customer service departments and attends to client queries and complaints with utmost diligence and the same has been done in the present case also the complainant has not only been attended to but has also been explained all aspects about his television's usage and handling all allegations to the contrary are false.

 

4. Opposite Party No. 1 provides a warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and the opposite parties cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. The relevant terms of warranty provided by the Opposite Party No. 1 to the Complainant are as follows
   1. Sony India Pvt Ltd (hereafter. "Sony) warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects during the period indicated in the section "Valid Up to" on the Product Information page. This non-transferable warranty is only for the first end user on purchase from Sony Authorized Dealer Sony Service Centers / Authorized Service Centers will repair the product on the terms and conditions below.
   2. Clause 1 - Warranty will be valid only when this Warranty Card and original Purchase Invoice are presented together for service
   3. It is necessary to mention that during the period of warranty, repair or replacement is at the sole discretion of the opposite party no. 1 alone. In the present case, the warranty on the subject television has expired.

 

5. It is submitted that the case is regarding a television, wherein all the three job sheets raised were related to the same problem. The complainant approached the opposite parties when the warranty on the subject television had expired i.e. after four years from the date of purchase. The television has been in use without any defects and complaints whatsoever for more than four years. The product has served the complainant very well. when the product was submitted for repairs the necessary part was in short supply and hence as a gesture of goodwill the opposite party offered an exchange vide letter dated 10 March 2015, It is also pertinent that the complainant could avail of the said offer only till 17 March 2015 The same has been reiterated in the letter dated 25" march 2015 and 14" May 2015 exchanged between the parties Thus it is submitted that the opposite parties have provided best services to the complainant without any prejudice.
6. Each time the complainant has approached the opposite parties, the opposite parties have given excellent post-sale services. The opposite parties did not make the complainant wait at all and were swift in offering solutions Further it is submitted that the opposite parties offered an exchange of the subject television it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice. The products of the OPs are sold across the world and hence have excellent quality. The products of the OPs are put through several quality checks before they are released in the market and are not have any substandard quality. Thus, all the allegations in the complaint are absolutely baseless, and any allegation to the contrary is absolutely denied.

 

7. In the case titled Sabina Cycle Emporium Chennakhaada Vs. Thajes Ravi M.R. Pancha villa vedar Ezkhone P.O. [1992] 1 CPJ 97. it has been held by Hon'ble Kerala SCDRC that where the complainant alleges defects in the goods. The Forum is bound to determine this fact on the basis of clear evidence by way of expert opinion. A similar view has been held by Hon'ble Delhi SCDRC in the matter of S.P Barthwal Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Another (2003) CPJ 298]. FURTHER, THE COMPLAINANT USED THE SUBJECT TELEVISION FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS BEFORE HE HAD EVEN A SINGLE GRIEVANCE. THE GRIEVANCE IS ALSO USER INDUCED. THE SAME HAS BEEN RESOLVED EVEN BEFORE THE COMPLAINANT APPROACHED THE OPS.

 

8. It is a settled position of law that whenever a party alleges any manufacturing defect, the same has to be proved with an expert report or opinion. It is pertinent that except for the allegations of the complainant no other cogent or convincing evidence has been filed. The complainant has not submitted any expert report or opinion as required under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

1. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2508 the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding that the terms of warranty were binding on the parties and that the liability undertaken in a contract between parties should be limited to the extent undertaken.

 

10. The Opposite Parties would also like to bring to the kind attention of this Hon'ble Forum, the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Vir Pratap (1997) II CPJ 81 (NC) wherein it was held that where the complaints of the Complainant were duly and promptly attended to by the Opposite Party and no reliable evidence was produced by the Complainant in support of his case that he suffered a loss due to inconvenience caused to him. the Complainant is not entitled to any relief in the present case as well the Opposite Parties have taken care of the Complaints of the Complainant and have therefore never been deficient in the services provided to the Complainant

 

11. It is submitted that though the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is beneficial legislation the same cannot be used as a mechanism to arm-twist companies to agree to the unreasonable demands of the consumers like the complainant in the present case.

 

• it is denied that the subject television started malfunctioning within two years from the date of purchase. It is further reiterated that the opposite parties have used the subject of television for more than four years without even a single grievance.

 

13. It is denied that the subject television did not work properly it is reiterated that without prejudice the opposite parties had informed the complainant that the necessary parts are not available in the market it is denied that the malfunctioning in the subject television increased over a period of time it is further reiterated that the complainant approached the opposite parties thrice for the same purpose. It is denied that the warranty of three months was applicable in the subject television Further it is reiterated that the complainant approached the Ops after the period of warranty has expired. It is denied that the opposite parties did not revert back with positive results It is further reiterated that the opposite parties provided the complainant with stellar and best post-sale services It is also reiterated that the opposite parties informed the complainant of the non-availability of the part and offered an exchange of the television but the complainant failed to answer in affirmative. It is denied that the offer given by the opposite parties is an unjustified offer it is denied there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties It is further submitted without prejudice that the non-availability of a part and an offer in exchange does not fall under the ambit of deficiency in services. It is denied that the subject television is of sub-standard quality. it is thus submitted that the complainant is trying to blame the opposite parties for no fault of their Thus it is submitted that the opposite parties have been efficient enough in delivering their services to the complainant.

 

• In the letter dated 10.3.2015 clearly mentioned that the complainant could avail of the offer only upto 17.03.2015 otherwise the offer will be closed. It submitted that the negligence is on part of the complainant to not have reverted back to the opposite parties in time. Thus, it is denied that any constraint and mental agony has been caused to the complainant on account of the opposite parties.

 

• It denied that the offer given to the complainant by the opposite parties was closed unilaterally It is denied that the offer was not justified it denied that any legal notice dated 23 11 2015 was sent by the complainant. is further submitted that the complainant has failed to annex any postal receipts of the same It denied that the offer was closed unilaterally without any reason it denied that the opposite party has acted illegally and arbitral is denied that the opposite parties are liable to the complainant in any manner. It is denied that the opposite parties have sold the defective product to the complainant.

 

16. It is denied that opposite parties are liable to make any payment in the form of damages or compensation to the complainant. It denied that OPs are liable for any replacement. In light of the above submissions, it is prayed that the present complaint against opposite parties be dismissed with costs.

 

4. The complainant filed a rejoinder on 11/04/2017 to the reply of OP, as well as evidence by way of an affidavit on 15/09/2017 testifying to all the facts stated in the complaint along with documents Exhibit 1 to 14 affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. The complainant has filed his evidence by way of his affidavit and he has proved the following documents: -

1. CW. 1 is a Proforma Invoice dtd 03.12.2012 confirming payment of Rs.1103/- to OP 2 for imperfect repairing the subject LCD in the year 2012
2. Copy of letter dated 10.03.2015 was annexed as Exh. CW- 2.
3. Copy of letter dated 11.03.2015 was annexed as Exh. CW- 3(colly)
4. Copy of the handicap certificate of both children of the complainant issued by AIIMS was annexed as Exh. CW- 4
5. Copy of letters dated 25.03.2015 and 14.05.2015 of OP relating to the closure of the Complainant's case and also Deficiency in Services on their part was annexed as Exh. CW- 5/Colly.
6. Letters/reminders dated 11.03.2015, 29.03.2015, 11.05.2015, 18.05.2015, 08.06.2015, 29.06.2015, 16.07.2015, 11.08.2015 and E-Mail dated 11.08.2015 written by the Complainant to OP alongwith all Postal Receipts towards proof of their dispatch by Speed Post/Registered Post was annexed as Exh. CW- 6/Colly.

 

7. Legal Notice dated 23.11.2015 and Postal Receipt towards proof of its dispatch by Speed Post sent to OP through Advocate Shri V. K. Chopra was annexed as Exh. CW-7 (Colly).
8. Service Job Sheet dated 15.01.2015 substantiating the availability of warranty of three months to the Complainant under para no. 6 written on its backside. was annexed as Exh. CW-8 (Colly).
9. News item in the daily "The Economic Times dated 31.07.2015 wherein the cost bifurcation of such LCDs has been given for levy of duty by the Government was exhibited as Exh. CW-9.
10. Exb. CW-10 is an advertisement distributed by the authorized dealer of OP no. 1 namely "Electronic Paradise" offering rebates ranging from 30% to 45% during September 2015. The same dealer was also giving very attractive offers and incentives on the products of the OP but the Complainant was deprived from availing of these offers due to non-receipt of any reply/redressal of complaint by the OP to his numerous requests made vide the above said letters, E-Mail and Legal Notice.
11. Exb, CW-11(Colly) is an advertisement by the authorized dealer of OP no. -1, namely "Sargam Electronics", in the daily leading Newspaper the Times of India" dated 19.06.2015 offering a rebate of 24% on a prevalent model of Sony TV with MRP Rs.32,990/- without exchange of TV. Confirmation of the above said dealer namely "Sargam Electronics" that the rebate of 24% is without exchange of TV is also annexed. The difference of rebate of 1% on the above MRP of Rs.32,990/- comes to Rs.330/- only. Against this very nominal difference of Rs.330/-, the unjustified offer of 75% of MRP by Opposite Party with the condition of returning the old LCD costing Rs.29,900/- due to their deficiency in services viz. non-availability of requisite part with them clearly tantamount to looting the complainant and exploitation of the Consumer on all the fronts. It may be observed from the same advertisement that TVs of other Brands and also of OP no 1 are available at rebates ranging from 25% to 55% which are much better than the offer of OP no. 1.
12. Exb. CW-12 (Colly) is the retail Invoice of the authorized dealer of OP no. 1 namely "Sargam Electronics" along with a Brochure of the Company (OP no.-1) containing the details like MRP, Model No. etc. confirm availability of another prevalent model of Sony TV at a rebate of above 25% having MRP of Rs.32,900/-" during Oct. 2015.
13. Exb. CW-13 (Colly) is an extended Warranty Card relating to the above said TV mentioned under Exh. CW-12 (Colly) provides Warranty for another two years on payment of the same additional amount as per the offer of Op no. 1 vide letter dated 10.03.2015.
14. Exb. CW-14(Colly) is two advertisements by OP no.-1 in the daily leading Newspaper "Times of India" dated 28.06.2015 and 29.10.2015 which contain the confirmation that both the above dealers namely, "Sargam Electronics" and "Electronic Paradise" are authorized dealers of OP no. -1.

 

5. On 29/05/2018, Ms Meena Bose, Authorized representative of the Opposite party No 1 filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of the OPs. Wherein the documents relied upon by the Opposite Party are as follows: -

 

1. A copy of Board Resolution enclosed as Annexure-A

ii        A copy of the warranty terms provided by the Opposite Party No. 1 are enclosed and marked as Annexure B.

iii       A copy of the letter dated 10 March 2015 is marked and enclosed as Annexure – C (Colly).

6. Written submissions have also been filed by both parties on 16/8/2018. Finally, oral arguments of both parties were heard on 6/09/2022 and the order was reserved.
7. Relevant part of the written arguments given by the complainant is that the opposite parties gave the unjustified exchange offer because of their deficiency in services on their part, viz., non-availability of necessary spare parts and this fact has been confirmed by themselves in their own letters dated 10.03.2015 and 25.03 It is further submitted that the exchange offer was given by the OP in both of the above said letters dated 10.03 and 25.03.2015 because the LCD was under a period of Warranty of three months provided after its repairing on 13.01.2015. This warranty of three months after repairs was categorically informed by the visiting service engineer at the time of installing the LCD on 13.01.2015. In the Written Statement, OP has given the unrelated submission that the LCD was out of warranty from the date of purchase in respect of which the Complainant has mentioned at all in his complaint. This totally false, frivolous and concocted submission of lapse of warranty from the date of purchase has been created and extensively covered by OP. The availability of a warranty of three months to the Complainant is further substantiated from the written on the backside of the Service Job Sheet dated 15.01.2015

 

• Had there been no Warranty, OP would have

1. Rejected the complainant's case at the outset after 13.01.2015 i.e. when the subject LCD was repaired by the OP
2. Would have not given the exchange offer vide their subsequent letters dated 10.03 2015 and 25.03.2015.
3. As per the prevalent practice of OP, their visiting Service Engineers during their visits on 15.01.2015 and 08.03.2015 would have priority claimed their visiting charges which was not done so by them because of availability of warranty of three months since the date of repairing of LCD viz, 13.01.2015,
4. Service Engineer on 08.03.2015 would have not disconnected all connections/wires of LCD from Electricity Mains with the assurance that LCD would be taken away to their Service Centre for re-repairing either on 08.03.2015 or 09.03.2015 without any charges owing to the prevailing warranty of three months

 

• The Complainant further submits that despite payment of the repairing charges as what and when demanded by the OP since the purchase of the LCD they could neither repair the LCD perfectly at any stage because of the manufacturing deficiency /nonavailability of the request part viz “board of LCD” nor replied a single word to the repeated request of the complainant invariably made in all his communications for Review of their totally unjustified offer’ the offer of 75% of MRP of new TV in addition to discarding and returning of old LCD costing Rs.29,900/- when the old LCD has not run its Normal Expected Life was further loss-making proposition compared to market rates. Offer payment of 75% MRP new was much more than the price quoted by Market Dealers even without exchange of old LCD. Further OP with malafide intention deliberately concealed their two letters dated 25.03.2015 and 14.05.2015 by not enclosing the same with their Written Statement which contains an acknowledgement of Complainant's immediate response dated 11.03.2015 to 10.03.2015 in their letter dated 25.03.2015 and their false their letter dated submission about reiteration of their offer in their letter dated 14.05.2015 respectively.

 

8. The Opposite Party No.1 in their written arguments categorically stated that the complainant purchased the television on 15.10.2009 and has used it for years without any complaints whatsoever and the only time he had approached the Ops was after the warranty period has expired. It is submitted that he has been provided with excellent after-sales services. It is a matter of fact that the complainant has been negligent use of the television and has been putting a lot of stress on the television not warranted under usage conditions as per the user manual. It is submitted that the opposite parties have provided services to the complainant even after the warranty period has expired. Opposite Party No. 1 provides a warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and the opposite parties cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. the opposite parties informed the complainant of the non-availability of the part and offered an exchange of the television but the complainant failed to answer in affirmative. It is denied that the offer given by the opposite parties is an unjustified offer it is denied there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties It is further submitted without prejudice that the non-availability of a part and an offer in exchange does not fall under the ambit of deficiency in services. It is denied that the subject television is of sub-standard quality.

 

9. After going through the material placed on record, we are of opinion that admittedly the OP categorically stated in their reply that when the product was submitted for repairs the necessary part was in short supply and hence as a gesture of goodwill to the opposite party offered an exchange vide letter dated 10 March 2015, However, the OP put a restriction to this offer that the complainant could avail the said offer only till 17 March 2015. This fact has been reiterated by OP in the letter dated 25" march 2015 and 14" May 2015 exchanged between the parties

 

10. since the OP stated categorically admitted the fact that the non-availability of the part and offered an exchange of the television, but since the complainant did not accept the offer hence this offer was closed by the OP. In our opinion, the OPs are not justified in unilaterally closing the Complainant's case for the simple reason that the Complainant did not give the decision by 17.03.2015 as conveyed vide their first letter dated 10.03.2015 when the OP itself in their subsequent letter dated 25.03.2015 acknowledged the Complainant's reply vide letter dated 11.03.2015 to their letter dated 10.03.2015. Moreover, in their same letter dated 25.03.2015, OP again offered the Complainant to purchase the new TV at 75% of MRP in exchange for the Complainant's old LCD in very clear terms and without any ambiguity and that too when the OP did not specify any time limit for acceptance of their re-offer.

 

11. Said offer was again reiterated vide their letter dated 14.05.2015 is a complete sham and ridden with falsehood OP in their letter dated 14.05.2015 have intimated the Complainant about the all of a sudden and arbitrary closure of the matter and not about reiteration of the offer. Moreover, this letter dated 11.03.2015 of the Complainant stands acknowledged by OP vide their letter dated 25.03.2015.

 

12. Further the opposite parties categorically stated that the "Complainant used the subject LCD for more than four years before he had even a single grievance". Whereas Pro Forma Invoice dated 03.12.2012 confirming payment of Rs.1103/- by the Complainant to OP No -2 for repairing of the same LCD in the year 2012 clearly proves the falsehood of the submissions of OP beyond an iota of doubt.

 

13. Infact in the year 2012 also, the same problem in the "BOARD OF LCD" was informed and the LCD could not be repaired perfectly due to the non-availability of this spare part at that time 2012. Malfunctioning’s of the LCD was also reported many times earlier to the above period since its sale and to quote some presently available instances are viz. on 11.10.2012, a complaint was lodged to Ms. Rupanshi at the Customer Care Centre of the OP no. 1. Complaint no. 1235384 dated 03.12.2012 was also lodged with Shri Ankur at the Customer Care Centre of the OP no.-1. Prior to this, Shri Krishan Lal, Service Engineer of OP no.: 2 visited time and again to get the LCD repaired but the repeated malfunctioning in the LCD of the Complainant was never rectified perfectly due to the non-availability of this requisite part viz., "BOARD OF LCD". The OPs were liable to provide the necessary spare part and not provide the same since the sale of the LCD was clearly tantamount to Deficient in Services. Opposite Party no. - 1 vide letter dated 10.03.2015 gave the offer of 75% of MRP of new TV in addition to discarding and returning of old LCD costing Rs 29,900/- only when the malfunctioning in the LCD increased and turned into a major problem due to further non-repair-ability of the "BOARD OF LCD" and in furtherance of vigorous follow up of the complaint dated 15.12.2014 lodged with the Customer Care Centre of the Company and Report of the Service Engineer of OP No. 2 informing that MAIN BOARD needs to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the TV as has been mentioned in the letter dated 10.03.2015 of OP no.-1. In the Service Job Sheet dated 15.01 2015 of the Service Engineer of OP no.- 2, the same problem of Board viz. "B. BOARD SUSPECTED" has been mentioned.

 

14. All these facts clearly prove beyond iota of doubt that the closure of the Complainant's case by the OP vide their letter dated 14.5.2015 for the simple reason that the Complainant did not respond by 17.03.2015 to their offer given vide letter dated 10.03.2015 is totally illegal, arbitrary, and hence is liable to be rejected as null and void at the outset. Since Sony is a very reputed company. Market dealers of this company inform that such Branded LCDs work smoothly for at least 10 to 12 years and problems in the Complainant's LCD started since its sale may be due to some manufacturing deficiency.

 

15. In view of the above since the Op had offered the complainant 75% of MRP of new TV in addition to discarding and returning of old LCD costing Rs 29,900/- only and also admittedly the complainant also used the old television for four years so keeping in view of the overall situation in our opinion, the offer of reduction of 25% towards MRP of new Television is genuine.  

 

16. Therefore, we allow the complaint of the complainant and it is directed that:-

1. The OPs will issue necessary guidelines or provide the offer of 75% of MRP of the television to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
2. The OPs will also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

(iv)   The OPs will also pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards harassment mental agony loss of time to the complainant.

23. Let the order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

 

24. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost after receiving the application for the certified copy as per the direction received from the Hon’ble State Commission.

 

25. File be consigned to record room.

 

26. Announced on 6.10.2022. 

 

Richa Jindal                              Anil Kumar Koushal                   Sonica Mehrotra

(Member)                                   (Member)                             (President)