Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/22/81

VINOJ MATHEW - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA REGD OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

04 Mar 2024

ORDER

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 4^th day of  March 2024

                                                                                             

                             Filed on: 07/02/2022

PRESENT

 

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                   Member                                                                   

C C. No. 81/2022

COMPLAINANT

 

Vinoj Mathew, Konnakkottu House, Ambatt Lane, Pournami Nagar, Aluva, Pin-683 101

 

 

Vs.

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

1. Sony India Regd. Office, A-18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, Pincode-110 044

 

 

2. Madonnna Care Centre, Sony Authorized Service Centre, Allens Cube, Door No.31/346-D, Paradise Road, Janatha Junction, Vytilla-682 019
3. Nandilath G-Mart, Door No.XXXIII/1116, 7,8 Toll Junction, Edappally, Pin-682 024

 

(Ops 1 to 3 rep. by Adv.K.S.Arundas & Abheek Saha, KHCAA Chamber No.450, Near High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam)

 

 

 

F I N A L    O  R  D  E  R

 

 

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

 

 

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had purchased a TV (KDL43W800 C Model Sony TV) from the 3^rd opposite party on 25.08.2015 for Rs.56,998/-.  When the complainant brought the TV and took it home the complainant had noticed that the TV was not working.  The matter was informed to the 3^rd opposite party and as per the instruction of the 3^rd opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party had replaced the TC within a month.  The 2^nd opposite party had replaced the TV with the same model under the pretense that it was a new TV.  After about six years the TV’s display was broken.  The complainant had reported the matter to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and a technician of the 2^nd opposite party came and informed the complainant that the display of the TV was again broken.  The complainant asked them to correct the display of the TV.  As the guarantee period of the TV was barely over, the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party that he would bear the repairing charges and the cost of the spare parts.  The technician of the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that it is not possible to get the spare parts since there was shortage of spare parts.  The technicians of the 2^nd opposite party demanded Rs.53,368/- to the complainant for exchanging the damaged TV.  It was also informed that Rs.53368/- is based on 25% discount.  The complainant had not accepted any demands made by the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant states that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide the spare parts.  The 2^nd opposite party took a stand that since the TV is six years old, the complainant should buy a new TV at cost of about 54000/- Rupees. The complainant states that the stand taken by the opposite party that the complainant should buy a new TV at a cost of Rs.54000/- is completely unfair and it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to provide the spare parts.  It is quite unfair that the complainant has to spend Rs.54000/- and to buy a new TV at his own expense.  Therefore, the complainant demands that the spare parts should be provided to the complainant by the manufacturer or a new TV should be provided to the complainant at the cost of defective parts.  It is suspected by the complainant that he was cheated 6 years ago by giving him an old TV on the pretense of a new TV by the opposite parties.  Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite parties

1. To provide the spare parts of the defective TV or to replace the TV with a new one at the cost of the spare parts only.
2. To give the purchased amount of the TV Rs.57000/- as compensation towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant
3. To give Rs.25000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant from the opposite parties.

2. Notice

Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 26.02.2022 and the opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared and filed their version.

3. Version of the opposite parties

The complainant in the present case has enjoyed the TV set in question for more than 6 long years without any hindrance or complaint of any nature whatsoever.  After using the TV set for 6 years, the complainant allegedly lodged first complaint on 31.12.2021 citing that the said TV set was displaying some colour on the  TV screen.  That the authorized service Centre of the 1^st opposite party readily inspected the TV set and upon such inspection it was found that the panel was to be replaced for proper functioning of the TV set, to which an estimate was also shared with the complainant.  However, as TV set was more than 6 years old and had become obsolete, the panel was not available with the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore, the 1^st opposite party as a good will gesture, eventhough the said TV set was out of warranty, offered entirely new TV set to the complainant at a special exchange offer price.  The complainant instead of appreciating the gesture of the company and to settle the matter amicably refused to avail the said offer and preferred to file the present complaint on false and frivolous grounds. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party No.1 and therefore the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No.1 and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold with an exemplary cost.

It was fond that a vertical bar was appearing on the display of the TV screen due to defect in Display panel of the TV set and thus same needs to be replaced for the proper functioning of the TV set and accordingly an estimate of Rs.18,721/- was shared with the complainant vide the job sheet.  However, the complainant refused to pay the estimated cost of repair and demanded free of cost repair of the TV set. The TV set is more than 6 years old, opposite parties were facing difficulty in getting the required spare part and the same was duly informed to the complainant.  It is also pertinent to mention that at the time of the service request made by the complainant that the said TV set was out of warranty.   The complainant enjoyed the TV set for 6 long years without any apparent difficulty and asking for a new TV set without paying any charges is not equitable in the eyes of law and reflects the malafide intention of the complainant for illegal enrichment.

 

In Mr.Navrang Pathania Vs.Manager HCL Infosystems Ltd., CC/517/2015, the District Commission, Chandigarh held that In case there is up gradation in the PCs or the mobile phones, then no one likes to purchase the old model.As such, in such a situation, it cannot be expected from the manufactures or the dealers to retain the spare parts in its store. The complainant herein purchased the TV set manufactured by the 1^st opposite party only upon knowing the superior quality of the products and supreme services to the products provided to the customer by the 1^st opposite party.The 1^st opposite had diligently provided services and offered to exchange the TV set as the spare part is not available with the opposite party No.1 because of the TV set being 6 years old.However, it is the complainant who had refused to accept the offer. The complainant has not proved his case and therefore does not deserve any relief from this Commission much less the reliefs as prayed for.

4. Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A4.

Opposite party field evidence by way of an affidavit and field documents which was marked as Exbt.B1 (series).  No other evidence from both parties.

Heard.

5. The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.

 

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite parties towards the complainant?

 

 

2. If so, reliefs and costs?

6.  Point Nos. (1) and (2)

For the sake of convenience, we have consider issue No. (1) and (2) together.

Exbt. A1 is the purchase invoice of the product for Rs.56,998/- dated 25.08.2015.

Exbt.A2 is the service job sheet of the vehicle issued by the Madona Care centre dated 28.12.2021. It is evident as per Exbt.A2 job sheet that the display panel of the TV was damaged.

Exbt.A3 is the email sent by the Sony India (1^st opposite party) to the complainant dated 10.01.2022.

Exbt. A4 is an email communication sent by the complainant to the Sony India Pvt. Ltd dated 10.01.2022.

As per Exbt.A4 e-mail dated 10.01.2022 the complainant had requested the opposite party to replace the TV set as such with the price of the defective component if spare parts are not available.  The opposite party had replied to the complainant through email on the same day.  The opposite party had persuaded the complainant to buy a BRAVIA KD 43X-80 (MRP of 82900/-) at a special price of Rs.53368/- inclusive of taxes as an alternate solution.

Exbt.A3 is also an email sent to the complainant by the opposite party offering the complainant to choose any other model from current BrAVIA. The opposite party also contended that they are unable to comply the request of the complainant.

We have made a thorough verification of all the above documents produced by the complainant taking into account of the facts and circumstances states by the opposite parties in the written objection filed.  The opposite party had persuaded the complainant to buy a new model of TV having a high value. The opposite parties’ technicians said that the spare parts of the TV are to be replaced.  It is the duty of the manufacturer to provide the spare parts.  The opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the complainant.

Exbt.A1 is the purchase invoice which shows that the complainant had purchased the disputed TV on  25.08.2015 from the 2^nd opposite party at a price of Rs.56,998/- (Rupees Fifty six thousand Nine hundred and ninety eight only) which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant’s TV became defective within 6 years from the date of its purchase and the opposite parties are miserably failed to rectify the defects of the TV due to the non-availability of spare parts.  The non-availability of the spare parts are admitted by the opposite parties.  The complainant is ready to pay the cost of the spare parts.  Instead of providing the necessary spare parts to rectify the defects of the TV, the opposite parties forced the complainant to buy another TV with a high price.  Under these circumstances usually the complainant is forced to buy another TV with a higher price, since  there were no other alternatives for the complainant. This is clearly an instance of unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties.  In this case the complainant had alleged that the defect of the disputed TV could not be rectified by the service providers.  The complainant had elaborately stated in this complaint that he had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships etc due to the non-functioning of the TV.  Ongoing through the complaint and proof affidavit filed by the complainant, it is clearly explained that the deficient service was offered to the complainant by the opposite parties.  Admittedly, the complainant had used the TV only for 6 years from the date of its purchase.  As a consumer, buying a TV worth Rs.56,998/-  and using it only for 6 years is not fare.  We are of the opinion that the opposite parties is liable to refund the price of the disputed TV to the complainant after deducting 15% depreciation to the purchase amount since the complainant had used the TV for 6 years.  Thus the 1^st and 2^nd issues are decided in favour of the complainant.

We found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not providing necessary spare parts since it is the duty of the manufacturer to provide the necessary spare parts. The strategy of forcing the consumers to purchase a new product having a higher value in the event of damage occurred  to the previously purchased goods and in the event of non-availability of spare parts, is a clear instance of unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  At the time of final hearing.  The complainant submits that the alleged TV is now kept at the complainant’s house.

In the result, the complaint is allowed and the following orders are hereby passed. 

1. We hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the invoice amount of the TV as evidenced by Exbt.A1 purchase invoice to the complainant after deducting depreciation at 15%.  Thus the opposite parties shall refund Rs.48,448/- (Rupees Forty eight thousand four hundred and forty eight only) to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant
3. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.6000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant
4. The liability of the opposite parties shall bjointly and severally.

 The above order shall be comply with within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) (ii) and (iii) above shall attract interest @ 7% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the open commission on this 4^th day of March 2024.

 

Sd/-

                                                                                    Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

                                                                                    V.Ramachandran, Member

 

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

 

APPENDIX

Complainant’s evidence

. Exbt. A1 is the purchase invoice of the product for Rs.56,998/- dated 25.08.2015.

Exbt.A2 is the service job sheet of the vehicle issued by the Madona Care centre dated 28.12.2021

Exbt.A3 is the email sent by the Sony India (1^st opposite party) to the complainant dated 10.01.2022

Exbt. A4 is an email communication by the complainant to the Sony India Pvt. Ltd dated 10.01.2022.

 

Opposite party’s evidence :

 

Opposite party field evidence by way of an affidavit and field documents which was marked as Exbt.B1 (series)

 

Date of Despatch        :: By Hand:            By post

 

 

 

uk