IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMOSSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 25th day of March, 2022
Filed on 4.01.2021
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA,LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.04/2021
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. K.N.Bijukumar 1. The General Manager
S/o K.Natesan Nandilath G-mart
Deepam House Nehru Bhavan, New Bazar-688001
Avalookkunnu.P.O
Alappuzha-688501
(Party in person) 2. The Manager, Sony India Pvt. Ltd
Mascot Tower, 2nd Floor,
Sahodaran Ayyappan Road
Kadavantara, Kochi
Ernakulam-682020
(Adv. Jayan .C.Das,
Adv. K.S.Arundas)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:-
The complainant had purchased an LED TV set at a cost of Rs. 23,950/- manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, from the 1st opposite party on 15/10/2016. The company provides one year warranty and the complainant had also taken extended warranty for further 2 years. Unfortunately the product became defunct just after the warranty period and a complaint was registered with the 1st opposite party. There technician examined the product and found the defect. They have informed that one component has to be replaced but the said spare part is not available with them. Thereafter they did not care to rectify the defect till the date. According to the complainant he had selected the disputed TV with an expectation of product quality and after sales service.
According to complainant due to the failure of the TV curbed the enjoyment of his family members and they have lost their prime programs of the TV and also the children are unable to attend their online classes. Hence the complainant approached this Commission for getting redress of his grievance
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
On 15/10/2016 complainant purchased a LED Sony KLV29P423 model TV from the shop of the 1st opposite party. After watching the models of various companies exhibited in the shop, the customer used to decide the model to be purchased according to his wish and budget. In this case also after going through various models of various companies, the complainant decided to purchase the TV of his own will and wish. The duty of the staff is to explain the features of products exhibited in the show room. There will be no compulsion to purchase any particular product from the part of the staff. It is true that said product had warranty for one year and the complainant purchased extended warranty for another two years. Thus the TV had three years warranty. While purchasing the TV the staff of 1st opposite party use to explain the necessity of a stabilizer for protecting the TV from voltage fluctuations. Here also the complainant was advised by the staff of purchase stabilizer but the complainant was reluctant to that advice by saying it was the game of 1st opposite party to sell a stabilizer.
The warranty of the TV expired on 14/10/2019. The complainant approached the first opposite party with the complaint on 11/11/2020 after an year of expiry of both warranty. Immediately 1st opposite party informed the matter to the manufacturer (OP2) and the service man attended the complaint. There the 2nd opposite party found failure of an electric board due to voltage fluctuation and the same was informed to the complainant and the cost of same will come to Rs.2800/- to be paid by the complainant. It is learn from the 2nd opposite party that the complainant was not amenable for the same. The complainant wants the whole amount paid to the TV. It is to be noted that the Tv got damaged after 4 years and one month of purchase after the expiry of warranty periods. It is leaned from the 2nd opposite party that due to the covid-19 pandemic the availability of spares was less and the delay for rectifying the defect caused due to that.
It is learned from the 2nd opposite party that they are even ready to substitute a new TV of same brand for Rs. 10,000/- for which also the complainant was not amenable. It was due to the sole negligence of the complainant the TV got damaged.
The allegations raised in 4th paragraph are absolutely false hence denied. There are no such provisions to provide 5 years service to the products. The price of the product varies according to the goodwill and popularity of the company. By understanding all these aspects the complainant purchased the present product. There were other models of another companies were placed for sale in the shop of this opposite party. After convincing various aspects the complainant had gone for the one according to his own will and wish.
There is no loss caused to the customer due to any deficiency in service from the part of this 1st opposite party since there is no deficiency in service or dereliction of duty from the side of this opposite party. There is no cause of action raised as alleged in this petition. Complainant had done all efforts immediately after getting the complaint from the customer by reporting the same to the manufacturer. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.
3. Version filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint filed by the complainant before the Commission is misconceived, erroneous and is also untenable in the eyes of the law. That the complainant has misdirected himself in filing the captioned complaint before this Commission as the grounds raised by the complainant are devoid of any merits and reasoning and the complainant has failed to bring forth any cause of action for filing the present complaint.
That the complainant in the present case has enjoyed the TV set in question for 4 long years without any hindrance or complaint of any nature whatsoever. After using the TV Set for 4 years, the complainant allegedly lodged first complaint on 11/11/2020 citing that the said TV set was not working properly as the same was not displaying any picture. That the authorised service centre of the 2nd opposite party readily inspected the TV set and upon such inspection it was found that the Main board is to be replaced for proper functioning of the TV set. However, the same was not available with the opposite party No.2 at the time the complaint was made due to the delay in supply because of the prevailing situation of covid 19 in the entire country. Therefore the 2nd opposite party as a good will gesture, even though 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, refused to avail the said offer. Further, on the spare part being available, the 2nd opposite party even offered the complainant to repair the TV set at the estimated cost but the complainant is adamant in getting the repair free of cost and also preferred to file the present complaint on false and frivolous grounds.
It is pertinent to state herein that at the time of the service request made by the complainant herein, the said TV set was out of the standard warranty of one year provided by opposite party No.2 and the extended warranty of 2 years provided by dealer. That it is also pertinent to mention herein complainant has used the said TV set for almost 4 years to his utmost satisfaction as not a single complaint was received by the 2nd opposite party prior to one in the month of 11/11/2020. Due to the advancement in the electronic products on a day to day basis, it is not possible to keep the spare parts handy all the time, considering the fact that the said TV set was 4 years old and was also out of warranty. That the non-availability of the Main Board was not in violation of any law but because of the delay in supply because of the prevailing situation of covid-19 and hence, the 2nd opposite party cannot be saddled with such responsibility.
4. Points for determination are as follows:-
1.
1.Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost
5. The complainant appeared in person and filed a proof affidavit not in tune with the complaint. He was examined as Pw1, Ext. A1 and A 2 were marked Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. We have heard both sides.
6. Point. No.1:-
Admittedly the complainant had purchased the disputed TV set worth Rs.23,950/- manufactured by the2nd opposite party, from the 1st opposite party on 15.10 2016.Ext.A1 is the retail invoice of the same. It is evident from Ext.A2 that the complainant had availed an extended warranty for further 2 years, from the 1st opposite party on the same day of its purchase. complainant contended that just after the said warranty the TV became defunct and was informed to the 1st opposite party but they did not repair the same due to the non-availability of spare parts. The complainant alleged that though he paid a huge amount as price, the same did not perform up to his expectation. It was contended by the 1st opposite party that the warranty of the product expired on 14.10.2019 and the complainant approached them on 11.11.2020. Their technician attended to the complaint without any delay and detected the failure of the electric board due to voltage fluctuation. Further, at the time of purchase, the complainant was directed to use the stabilizer but he did not use the same. After the inspection, it was informed the complainant that the cost of the same will come to Rs.2800/- to be paid by the complainant Further 2nd opposite party was ready to substitute a new TV of the same brand for Rs. 10,000/-. But the complainant was not amenable to opt both options. On perusal of the evidence on records, it is found that the defect was found after the warranty period. The complainant pointed out that he had purchased the product, by paying a huge amount than other branded products, with great expectations of the quality and durability of the product. Pw1, the complainant deposed that he had selected said product as per the instruction given by the technicians of opposite parties. But they did not give any instruction of using the stabilizer. Even though, the warranty of the product expires, in addition, the product seller provides an implied assurance that the product will meet the reasonable expectations of the buyer. The case of the complainant is that the product became defunct immediately after the warranty. Further, the opposite parties have failed to establish that the defect occurred because of general wear and tear or improper usage on the part of the complainant. Opposite parties contended that they have estimated the cost of repairing as Rs.2,397/- but the complainant was not amenable to pay the said amount. However, the spare part was not available due to the situation spreading covid 19. Even then, opposite parties are liable to service the product within the warranty period, at the same time they are duty bound to service the same beyond the warranty period at the expense of the complainant. It seems that the complainant is waiting such a long time for getting rectification of the TV. In the above circumstances, we think that a direction can be given to the opposite parties to repair the disputed TV after receiving Rs. 2,400/-from the complainant.
7. Point. No.2:-
To conclude, the complaint is allowed in part as follows:-
1. The opposite parties shall forthwith rectify the defects of the disputed TV by receiving Rs.2,400/-(Rupees Two thousand four hundred only) as repairing charge from the complainant. In that event, the complainant shall hand over the disputed TV with the 2nd opposite party or their authorized service centre. The transporting expenses shall be borne by the complainant.
2. Both opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 25th day of March, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.N.Bijukumar (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Cash Bill dtd. 15 Oct. 2016.
Ext.A2 - Warranty Card.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
//True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
