Order-17.
Date-26/05/2015.
Complainant Sri Arijit Modak by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one Sony Bravia Television Model No.KLV-40R482B, Sl. No. 3264640 on 02.05.2014 from M/s. Great Eastern Trading Co. on full payment of Rs. 56,900/- vide Invoice No. 11/5A/1414/01392. But after purchase and installing of the same in the room of the complainant is not in operation even after the main power is on. So, the complaint was lodged on 30.07.2014 in the service centre being complaint No. J-41675321 and after visiting the engineer in the complainant’s house checked the TV set and confirmed on 05.08.2014 that the Main Board of the TV Set needed for replacement due to manufacturing defect and that replacement of Main Board of M/s. Sony Service Personnel was not acceptable to the complainant and requested them to replace the entire TV set to ensure that it is devoid of any further defects and on the ground in the warranty clause, it is specifically mentioned that the product to be free from manufacturing defects during the period and the main board of the TV set through which the power comes to the TV is micro-processor based electronic gadget and the price of this TV is much higher in compare to any other brand available in the market is because of the patient design of such critical component and this main board cannot be treated as minor component for a television.
So, in the above circumstances, the matter was communicated to the op vide e-mail on 23.08.2014, 27.08.2014 and 08.09.2014 and op shall take any step and for which complainant suffered much as op sold a defect article and they are trying to replace that part but when manufacturing defect is apparent, then it must be replaced and for which complaint is filed for negative attitude of the op even if there was warranty and in the result the present complaint is filed for redressal.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant purchased the said TV on full payment of Rs. 56,900/- on 02.05.2014 from the concerned manufacturer i.e. op no.1 and warranty on its product and it is liability directly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty period cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty and moreover op always was ready to replace the same the defective part, but complainant did not agree for which it cannot be repaired. So, there is no laches on the part of the op and further it is submitted that only for the purpose of wrongful monetary gain filed this complaint and this op to repuduiate the same as per warranty clause when the terms of warranty are binding the parties and the right should be limited to the extent undertaken and now the present case in such a manner will external support within the terms and warranty further complainant claimed replacement which is not possible and in fact there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the op for which this complaint fails.
Decision with reasons
On proper assessment of the complaint and written version and also the document as filed by the complainant and further considering the argument as advanced by the op and also on careful consideration of the warranty clause, it is clear that as per warranty clause, it is specifically mentioned that the item which was purchased by the complainant is free from all manufacturing defect. But it is admitted fact that manufacturing defect was admitted by the op on the basis of the complaint of the complainant dated 30.04.2014 that main board of the TV is not required to be replaced due to manufacturing defect and most interesting factor is that a valuable TV on payment of Rs. 56,900/- was purchased by the complainant on 02.05.2014.
So, it is clear that within warranty period the defect was detected and as per warranty clause if the defects in the materials and workmanship is found either it shall be repaired or replaced in accordance with the condition stipulated therein. Now question is that why after purchasing a TV on payment of Rs. 56,900/-, a customer shall have to get repairing of the defective parts for manufacturing defect of a TV by the op or its service centre after purchase.
But it is settled principle of law when manufacturing defect is there, in that case replacement is must by replaced what would be made by the ops, otherwise the entire amount with some compensation shall be paid by the op to the complainant. In this regard it is to be mentioned that the defect which was found by the ops was not the defect caused by the complainant. Then invariably it is manufacturing defect. But only to bursh aside the manufacturing defect, op has tried to convince it. But it is to be mentioned that one TV is required to be repaired just after one month from the date of purchase and that is the common complaint in respect of defective TV set and in the present case it is found that complainant rightly claimed for replacement in view of the fact mother board was defective that is admitted by the op.
Then it is clear that the defective TV set was sold by the manufacturer through their dealers. In this regard it is to be mentioned that this dealer sold many such LED TV of Sony Company which are found always defective and service centre and manufacturer have not replaced them. But repairing is always made within the period of warranty and after expiry of warranty, they have their no liability. So, they always adopt such path to repair the same. It is to be mentioned that electronic goods if it is newly purchased but defect is found from the very beginning, then after repairing several defects shall be detected and company and the service centre repairs it for one year, thereafter they hold their hands up stating that there is no warranty period when after one year valuable TV is found nothing but a scrap and in the present case complainant rightly pointed out why he sold away the TV having manufacturing defect when certificate was given that there was no manufacturing defect.
So, considering that fact it is evident that there is no question of repairing the same when manufacturing defect is there and by repairing invariably the sentiment of the consumer cannot be cured because one cannot except that just after purchase of a valuable TV, he shall have to enjoy repaired set for manufacturing defects because in the present case it is not used for many months. But just after two or three months the said defects were detected.
So, in the above circumstances, we are convinced to hold that ops’ version is completely unfaithful and they have waited to cross the warranty period in such a manner by repairing after repairing. But it is settled principle of law and all over World if manufacturing defect is there, replacement is must when replacement clause is there and when manufacturing defect is admitted by the op. So, in view of the above fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that complainant is entitled to get a new TV with such certificate that it has no manufacturing defect an d if op fails to comply that in that case ops jointly and severally shall have to refund the entire amount of Rs. 56,900/- and compensation and litigation cost etc.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
Ops are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay/refund the price money of the TV of Rs. 56,900/- and also compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- within one month from the date of this order if in the meantime op fails to replace a new similar type of TV set without any manufacturing defect to the complainant, invariably on the date of replacement op shall have to take charge of old TV and if op fails to replace the same, in that case ops jointly and severally shall have to pay the entire decretal amount before this Forum and take back the defective TV set from the complainant in open Forum. If ops fail to comply the order within the stipulated time, in that case, penal action shall be started against the ops for which penal proceeding u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started and for which they shall be imposed further penalty and fine.
