Orissa

Rayagada

CC/124/2018

Sri Rajib Ataka Rellibadinga - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Sony India Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.  124/ 2018.                                           Date.   18     .     3  . 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                          Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri  Rajib Ataka,  At: Rellibadinga, Po: Therubali, Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). 765 018,  Cell No.78540-39772.                                                                                                                                                             …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.TheManager,Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,  Mathura Road,  New Delhi-110044.     

2.The Manager, Sony Service  Centre, R.N.Electronics, Gandhi Nagar, Main Road,         Behind Paramajyoti  Theatre,  Berhmapur- 760001.                 .…..Opp.Parties

.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps :- Sri  S.K.Jena and Sri A.K.Lenka, Advocates

 

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non repair of  LED  which was found defective within warranty period and not removed the defects    for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief facts of the case are  summarized here under.

That  the complainant had purchased  SONY LED model Name KLV-32R302E product  8D No. 18914701, Sl. No. 4626592   from the Dealer Doordarsan Digital Shoppe, Rayagada(Odisha) on Dt.17.09.2017  on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.24,500/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  One year warranty period . The above set   found defective  within the warranty  period. During the Month July, 2018 the above set found defect and not in working condition. The complainant feel there is manufacturing defect in the above set.   The complainant complained the matter to the Dealer Doordarsan Digital Shoppe, Rayagada(Odisha) during the month of July,2018 and handed over the above set.  in turn the  dealer had sent the same to the O.P. No.2 for rectification. The O.P. No.2 over telephone informed the complainant  on payment of Rs.9,000/- the above LED will be rectified. The complainant feel within warranty  period the above LED had found defective so on free of cost the company should be rectified the same. Inspite of repeated  contact the service centre refused to rectify or replace the same without receiving  money.   Now the above set is under the custody of the O.P. No.2.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum Direct the O.Ps to  refund purchase price of the SONY LED  a  sum of Rs.24,500/- to the complainant & such other  relief as the  forum deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

 

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P. Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

There  is no dispute that   the  complainant has purchased  SONY LED model Name KLV-32R302E product  8D No. 18914701, Sl. No. 4626592   from the Dealer Doordarsan Digital Shoppe, Rayagada(Odisha) on Dt.17.09.2017  on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.24,500/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period. (copies of the  Retail invoice No. 366 Dt.17.09.2017    inter  alia   one year warranty  card  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I & Annexure-II).

            The main grievances of the complainant is that due to non  rectification of the  above  set perfectly  within warranty period  and  required  Rs.9,000/- for rectification of the same   he wants  refund  of purchae  price of the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

The O.Ps in their written version  contended that  the LCD panel    T.V   is found to be damaged due to external cause of liquid ingression and needs to be replaced to service the product. We found definite of liquid entry.  Even if a  product   remains   under  warranty, as we mentioned in our warranty terms and conditions,   this service is not covered under warranty.    Due to the Liquid damage condition of the said  T.V. the service centre  shared an estimated cost a sum of Rs.8,990/- for repair of the above T.V.   The complainant  instead of approving  the said  estimate   started   raising   unreasonable demands and later  on preferred  to file the  present complaint.

The O.Ps in their written version relied  citations which are mentioned  here:-

It is held  and reported in  CPJ – 1997(2) page  No. 81 in the case of Punjab Tractors Ltd.  Vrs.  Vir Pratap  where in the   Hon’ble  National Commission observed  “Where the complaints of the complainant were duly and promptly attended by the O.P. 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 in this case is not entitled to any  relief. In the present case the OPs have duly attended the complaints of the complainant and have therefore never been deficient in providing the services  to the complainant.”

Further it is held and reported in  CPJ 1992 (1) page No. 97 in the case of Sabeena Cycle emporium chennakhaada Vrs.  Thajes Ravi  M.R. Pancha Villa Vedar Ezkhone P.O.  where in the  Hon’ble State CDR Commision, Kerala  observed  “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. The aforesaid proposition of law has also been reaffirmed by the  Hon’ble State Commission,West Bengal  in the case of  Sri Keshab Ram Mahto Vrs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd and Anrs.  2003(2) page No. 244. 

For better appreciation  this forum  relied citations  which are mentioned here under:-

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case  2005  Page No. 527 (NS) in the case of Meera&Co Ltd. Vrs. ChinarSyntex Ltd  where in the Hon’ble National Commission  observed “Consumer-    Generating set purchased -  defects developed  during  warranty  period - repairs done on payment - dealer can not be absolved from his liability   because manufacturer has not  been impleaded- dealer deficient in service- order  to dealer   refund   amount with interest to the complainant.”

Again It is held and reported  in CTJ-2005, Page No. 1208 where in  the hon’ble  National Commission   observed  “Both the dealer & manufacturer of the  product having defects  in it, are jointly and severally liable to the  purchaser, because he knows only the dealer from whom he purchased that  product and not its manufacturer”. 

 

Further   It is held and reported in CPR- 2009 (2) Page No. 42  where in  the Himachal Pradesh  State Commission  observed “ we may mention here that it is by now well settled that the C.P. Act, 1986 is a welfare  legislation  meant to give  speedy  in expensive and timely justice to the parties. Similarly it is also well know that where  two views are possible, one favourable to the consumer needs to be followed.”

           

            Again it  is  held and  reported in  Consumer Law today 2014(1) page No. 153 where in the  Hon’ble  Goa State Commission observed “The tax invoice duly   signed by dealer can be considered to be an agreement between the parties subject to which the   sale was   made to the  consumer – liability for defect in article sold both the dealer and manufacturer  are jointly and severally. 

 

We are of the opinion that the case  is relating to defective goods  which is covered under section 2(i)(f) of the C.P. Act. The C.P. Act  which provides that  “Defective means any fault, in imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity are standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force”.                                                                  After amendment made by  the C.P. Act   of 2002 wherein it  is made clear that when a complainant  is using the product of the Sony   manufacturing company   purchased from the  present  O.P.  is also coming within the definition of consumer and the service provided  or attached to the said  goods in the shape of warranty or guarantee is also available to the users.

Since the  above  goods     was sold by the   O.P, it can not evade  liability  for repair/replacement of spare parts on the ground of manufacturer of the  above goods  with whom the  complainant did not have any privity of contract , having  not been impleaded as party to the complaint  or service was to  be  affected. Further the complainant  will be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986.

            Further no trader or  manufacturer can escape from its liability of selling defective goods much less the defects that are manufacturing and irreparable. In the instant case  the consumer has been left high and dry due to the defective  LED  and faulty workmanship  used at the time of manufacturing the LED. It was with an object to protect the interest of the consumer  and curb  the tendencies of unscrupulous manufacturers and dealers who care  for the quality or  standard which is required to be maintained in relation to the goods  the Consumer  Protection Act was brought on the  statute book and  by virtue of provisions of Section -14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 the Consumer Fora  has the power to direct the dealer to do one or more of the following things, namely:-

                         Sec.14( c) : to return the complainant the price, or as                                              the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant ,

                         (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by its  as                                                     compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury                                                suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of    the  opposite party; 

            The word ‘ defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or ( under any contract, express or implied, or ) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods and  the term ‘ deficiency in service ‘  as per Section 2(1)(g) means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law  for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.           

            In the present case in hand    the defects therein developed  within warranty period of one year. For the best interest of justice in our opinion the O.Ps. should  replace  LCD panel  of Sony LED    T.V    with a new  one defect free which  is  lying  at O.P  No.2 premises since  July,2018.

Further we observed the O.Ps are not rendering proper service to the complainant establishes their callousness and whimsical attitude. The  forum feel that the O.Ps services are deteriorating and does not follows   ethics.  Due to the same attitude  the complainant deprived of  to get the good service during warranty period.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence to the meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

                                               

 

 

 

                                                            ORDER.

In resultant the complaint stands allowed in part against  O.Ps  on contest.

The O.Ps   are  directed to remove all  the defects  including  replacement of  LCD panel  of Sony LED    T.V    with a new  one defect free which  is  lying  at O.P  No.2 premises since  July,2018  free of cost enabling the complainant to use the same in perfect running condition like a new one    and shall provide all sort of after sale service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the  warranty of the afore said   set  with  extended further 6(six) months  fresh warranty.  After rectification the  O.Ps are directed to  deliver the same to the  complainant within  45 days.   Parties  are left to bear their own cost.

This  is to  be  complied   by the O.Ps.  within 45 days  from the date of receipt of this order. 

Copies of the order be served  on the parties free of cost  as per rule.

Dictated  and corrected by me. 

Pronounced on  this      18^th.     March,  2019. 

 

Member.                              Member.                                          President.

 

.