Sri Kamal De, President
This is a case over alleged sale of a defective Television set by the OPs to the Complainant.
Briefly, the case of the Complainant, is that he purchased a colour TV, namely, Sony KLV-24 P412B from the OP No. 1 at a price of Rs. 15,000/-, inclusive of all taxes, on 12-06-2014. It is alleged that the Complainant had to face a lot of inconveniences because of various kinds of defects that he experienced with the said TV set soon after its purchase. It is further alleged that although the OPs attended to his complaints, but the same did not have any salutary effect and at present the TV set is totally out of order. It is stated that although the Complainant served legal notice upon the OPs, but the same did not yield any positive result. Hence, this case.
The OPs, on notice, appeared to defend their case and submitted WV. They also took a positive part in the entire proceedings through their Ld. Lawyer. It is claimed that OPs always extended their wholehearted cooperation towards the Complainant and swung into action swiftly whenever any complaint was lodged from the side of the Complainant before them. It is also stated that in reply to the notice of the Complainant, the OPs requested the Complainant to allow them to inspect the TV set. However, instead of appreciating their gesture, the Complainant has moved the present case. They have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Points for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1&2:
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and conveniences of discussion.
It appears, the TV set in question was purchased by the Complainant on 12-06-2014 and the validity period of warranty expired on 11-06-2015. Admittedly, a complaint was lodged by the Complainant with the OPs on 08-09-2014 regarding appearance of vertical line on the TV screen and after due inspection, the panel of the TV set was replaced. Also admitted is the fact that another complaint of similar nature was lodged by the Complainant on 04-07-2015 and this time also the panel of the TV set had to be replaced. It appears; the Complainant lodged another complaint regarding the TV set on 04-08-2015 which remained unresolved till today.
Precisely, the panel of the TV set became out of order barely within a period of 2½ months of its purchase. Subsequently, the panel again malfunctioned within 10 months of last replacement of the same. Then, within a month of such repairing, the TV set became totally defunct.
It appears that, when the Complainant lodged a complaint with the OP Nos. 1&2 through his Ld. Lawyer on 04-08-2015, instead of rushing for service engineer, the Kolkata office of OP sought permission to inspect the TV set. One wonders, why any permission was at all needed to inspect the defunct product when, it is not even the case of the OPs that their service engineer was ever denied access to the defunct TV set. Such conduct clearly nullifies the contention of the OPs that they have always been prompt to attend to the complaints of the Complainant. It is a fact that, on earlier occasions, whenever complaint was lodged by the Complainant, the OPs attended to the same. However, question remains with the efficacy of such endeavours. If a TV set develops one problem or the other at such short intervals, no doubt, the very purpose of purchasing the same gets defeated.
The OPs have stoutly denied the allegation of the Complainant that the TV set is suffering from any kind of manufacturing imperfection. Yet, we find that, they themselves are at a loss behind repeated malfunctioning of the TV set in question and no wonder, therefore, that they have refrained from assigning any plausible reason in this regard. Undisputedly, the problems did not crop up even once because of rough use/mishandling of the TV set by the Complainant. Then, one wonders, what else it could be save and except some kind of inherent problems with the product. If a product malfunctions every now and then, it is a clear pointer to the fact that the product is suffering from some kind of inherent problems. Differently put, if a new product cannot withstand the normal wear and tear and develops frequent problems, it does not denote the good health of the product in question. We can safely draw the inference that the T.V. set in question was defective.
It appears that the Complainant had to spend out Rs. 650/- to repair the TV set in July, 2015 and within a month of such repairing, the TV set has become totally defunct. We, thus, find that although the TV set was repaired on earlier occasions, the relief did not last long. Compelling a customer to bear the brunt of repeated failure of the service engineers to fix a problem on permanent basis does not speak high of the expertise of service engineers. We strongly believe that it is totally unfair and unethical on the part of a manufacturer/seller to expect a customer dig hole in his pocket on account of failure of the service engineers to effect perpetual remedy to a problem.
There is no dearth of TV manufacturers in the market. Yet, brand conscious people go for products of their choice at a premium out of their ardent hope that it would do justice to their complete faith in the company. Ld. Lawyer for the OPs claimed that uncompromised quality control and after-sales service remain their passport to billions of customers worldwide. We feel, giants cannot live only on reputation. While the OPs miserably failed to justify their worth, we think, they should be magnanimous enough to admit their failure and call back the defective product on their own; thereby, set a christening example of customer service for others to emulate.
Be that as it may, we find that the TV set developed problem within the warranty period and thus far repeated endeavour of the OP No. 3 to sort out the problem effectively remained elusive. In such circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to direct the OPs either to replace the defunct TV set with a new defect free TV set of similar specification, else refund the price of the TV set to the Complainant.
Both these points are, thus, decided in favour of the Complainant.
Accordingly, the petition of complaint succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the C. C. No. 97/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs. OPs are directed either to replace the defunct TV set with a new one of similar specification which shall be free from any defect or refund the price of the same to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- within 40 days from the date of this order, i.d., Complainant would be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law and in that case, the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per diem from this day till compliance of this order in toto. The OPs will, however, be entitled to take back the defective T.V. set in either of their choice – either to replace or refund of price.
