DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 23rd day of August, 2018
C.D Case No. 29 of 2018
Present:-
1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Memberer
Sri Jaganath Dash
S/o Bishnu Mohan Dash
At: Nuabazar
Po/Ps: Bhadrak
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Manager, SRI LAXMI SERVICE,
An Authorized Service Centre of Sony Co.
At: Padhuanpada, Bidyut Marg, (Near AXIS Bank)
Po/Dist: Balasore
2. Manager, Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial
Estate, Mathura Road,
New Delhi- 110044
3. Manager
Biswal Sales Corporation
By pass, Chhapulia
Po/Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel for Complainant: Sri B.K. Mohanty & Associates, Advocates
Counsel for all O.Ps: Mr. S.K. Jena, R.B. Associates, (Advocates)
Date of hearing: 06.08.2018
Date of order: 23.08.2018
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arose out of a complaint petition filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant had purchased a SONY LCD, television of KL V 32 CX 320 brand from OP No. 3 on payment of Rs 30,900/- in cash with official warranty of complete one year from the date of purchase. The said T.V was functioning smoothly without any defect for more than three years and there after some defects occurred in the T.V set as the pictures on the screen became very hazy and was not clearly visible. The complainant immediately reported the defects to OP No. 3 being physically present at dealer point, who advised to discuss with the authorized service centre of the Sony India Ltd. company (OP No. 2) at Balasore. Accordingly the complainant reported before OP No. 1 (Authorized Service Centre) together with T.V for repairing. After thorough examination of the T.V, OP No. 1 informed the complainant that the repairing of T.V would cost of Rs 12,000/- and advised the complainant to deposit 50% of the cost in advance in the Bank A/c number of OP No. 1 maintained with Indian Bank and deposited an amount of Rs 6,000/- which constitutes 50% of the total amount on dt. 09.05.2017 and awaited for more than six and half months to get his T.V set repaired but the O.Ps did not initiate any action and consequently the complainant served a notice upon the O.Ps on dt. 22.12.2017 through his advocate to get his T.V repaired within a period of 15 days failing which the complainant would be constrained to adopt legal recourse to get the matter resolved. But the O.Ps did not pay any heed to the contents of the notice rather preferred to remain silent for over 7 months and there after issued a letter (undated) addressing the complainant proposing to offer a new T.V with 25% less of the retail price under exchange offer scheme which was not agreed by the complainant. Since then the OP No. 1 has neither repaired the T.V nor has refunded the amount of Rs 6,000/-, the deposited amount which amounts to deficiency of service by the OP No. 1 & 2. Finding no other way to get the paid service from OP No. 1 & 2, the complainant preferred this dispute praying for a direction to O.Ps for repairing of T.V along with compensation and cost.
O.Ps resisted the complaint and contested the case. O.Ps, at the outset, admitted the complainant had purchased a Sony T.V set of model KLV-32CX320 bearing serial No. 7035149 on dt. 23.02.2017 from OP No. 3 who is the authorized dealer of OP No. 2. The said T.V covers warranty for a period of one year starting from the date of purchase by OP No. 2, the manufacturer of the T.V. If any claim arises beyond the warranty period, the manufacturer or the OP No. 2 shall not be liable for any damage caused or loss. It is submitted by the O.Ps that the T.V set provided uninterrupted service to the customer for more than 5 years and approached OP No. 1 on dt. 09.05.2017 raising the complaint as ”V & H Lines appears on the screen” which need to be repaired. OP No. 2 estimated the cost of repairing as Rs 12,000/- and advised complainant to pay in advance of Rs 6,000/- which was complied by the complainant on the same day in depositing the repairing cost of Rs 6,000/- in the Bank account of OP No. 1 on dt. 09.05.2017. As it was an old model T.V, the spare parts could not be available as a result of which OP No. 1 failed to repair the same for which OP No. 1 offered a proposal to complainant purchase a new T.V of the same company with 25% less of the prevailing retail price of any brand but the complainant did not respond to the proposal rather filed a dispute case in the Consumer Forum. It is also submitted by the O.Ps that the claim raised by the complainant is unreasonable with an intention to extract undue benefits from the O.Ps. It is also stated by the O.Ps that after using the T.V for more than 5 years if the claim raised for compensation is nothing but absolutely unreasonable. The O.Ps have also denied the allegations of the complainant made in the complaint and claimed the dispute case is liable to be dismissed in view of the decision of National Commission in the case between Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vrs Vir Pratap reported in II CPJ 81 (NC) and in a case of Sabeena Cycle Emporium, Chennakhaada Vrs Thajes Rabi M.R. Pancha Villa Vedar Ezkhone, P.O (1992) I CPJ-97 and another case of Keshab Ram Mahto Vrs Hero Honda Motors Ltd. reported in CPJ, 2003 at P/2 44 submitting as above. The O.Ps have claimed the complaint filed by the O.Ps does not have any merit and liable to be dismissed with cost for the interest of justice.
We have gone through the complaint, written version submitted by O.Ps, perused materials on record and observed as follows:-
Admittedly the complainant had purchased a Sony make T.V set from OP No. 3 who is the authorized dealer of OP No. 2 on dt. 23.02.2012 for consideration of Rs 30,900/- which was paid in cash to the said OP. It is an also admitted fact that much after expiry of warranty period the said T.V set gave rise to some technical defects which was reported to OP No. 3 who, being undone, advised the complainant to contact OP No. 1 for providing necessary service to rectify the defects. Accordingly complainant contacted OP No. 1 over phone narrating the nature of defects and after having heard the problems of the complainant, OP No. 1 are suggested to come to Balasore with the T.V set for verification and necessary connection. The complainant acted upon according to the advice of OP No. 1 the complainant met the said OP together with the defective T.V set at Balasore where the technical experts examined the T.V set and directed the complainant to deposit Rs 6,000/- which is 50% of the total cost to be incurred for repairing of the said OP. Immediately complainant complied the requirement of OP No. 1 and deposited Rs 6,000/- in the Bank account bearing No. 92862554 of OP No. 1 on dt. 09.05.2017 maintained in Indian Bank. Apart from above facts all other allegations made by the complainant are disputed by the O.Ps.
1. The complainant, in course of hearing, contented in stating that the defect which is mentioned in the complaint arose two years after lapse of the warranty period and therefore he does not claim for replacement of any part or the whole T.V. As there is a service centre of the Sony India Company Ltd. at Balasore, the electronic products of Sony India Ltd. are repaired there not only the warranty period but also after the warranty period is over. The products of OP No. 2 are required to be repaired whenever it is necessary and the customers will avail service from the authorized service provider of the company and the authorized service centre is bound to provide service to the customers and not providing service by the authorized service centre will certainly tantamount to deficiency of service. It is also submitted by the complainant that he has deposited the required amount with the OP No. 1 as per his demand on dt. 09.05.2017 as the said OP did not provide service within a period of one month as was assured, and kept himself silent for a prolonged period of 7 months which is considered intentional amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant has, time and again approached more than 10 to 15 times to OP No. 1 at it’s service centre at Balasore bearing travelling cost but the said OP did not pay any heed to the sincere request of complainant as if OP No. 1 has turned a deaf ear to the words of the complainant which was annoying for the complainant and being aggrieved served a notice upon O.Ps through his advocate on dt. 27.12.2017 which was also not responded by them and finding no other alternatives, complainant filed this dispute against the O.Ps alleging deficiency of service and with a prayer to issue direction to the O.Ps to repair the T.V set and to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment along with cost of litigation.
On the other hand O.Ps have objected in stating that the complainant has availed the service of the T.V set on interrupted for a period of more than 5 years which is not failing within the warranty period. Since there was no defect in the T.V set within the warranty period O.Ps are not supposed to pay any claim or to get the T.V set repaired or to provide paid service to the customer for getting the T.V set repaired. Hence the dispute filed by the complainant does not bear any merit and liable to be rejected with cost.
The O.Ps have also cited the example of National Commission decision in a Case between Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vrs Vir Pratap reported in CPJ 1997, in case between Sabeena Cycle Emporium Chennakhaada Vrs Thajes Ravi M.R. Pancha Villa Verda Ezkhone reported in CPJ 1992 of Kerala State Commission and in a case of West Bangle Commission between Keshab Ram Mahto Vrs Hero Honda Motors Ltd. and Anr reported in a year in CPJ 2003 but the O.Ps have not submitted the decision copies as cited above as a result of which the Forum could not be able to refer those cases for passing final order.
It is observed from the written version of O.Ps that the entire submission are revolving around the warranty period and 5 years of perfect performance. No where it is mentioned in the terms and conditions of the warranty card or elsewhere in the retail invoice that after completion of 5 years with proper performance without any defect of the T.V set, the paid service by the authorized service centre of OP No. 2 cannot be given. It is most important to mention here that if such paid service cannot be provided by OP No. 1, why did OP No. 1 receive Rs 6,000/- (50% of the total repairing cost) from the complainant assuring him to get the T.V set repaired within a period of 1 month? The submission of O.Ps is very much irrelevant to the present case as O.Ps have taken false plea to escape them shelves from the legal liberties. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant, in order to confirm his claim as cited a decision of State C.D.R Commission, Andaman & Nicober Islands in Appeal Case No. 06 of 2015 which was decided on 10.01.2017 between P.M. Jose Vrs The Manager, M/S Techmech.. wherein it is decided that if the service not provider, whether free or paid service, according to the requirement of the customer, as and when necessary by the authorized service centre of manufacturer of product, it would be held that there is deficiency of service and the O.Ps involved in the process are liable to pay compensation and bound to provide service to the customer within a limited period of time.
In view of the above discussions and scrutiny of relevant materials of record it is held that the O.Ps have grossly neglected in their legitimate performances in providing service to the complainant within the assured time limit amounts to deficiency of service and O.Ps are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment. Hence it ordered;
ORDER
In the result, the present complaint be and the same is allowed against the OP No. 1 & 2 on contest. OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to repair the T.V set free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant at his door step and refund the amount of Rs 6.000/- which was deposited by earlier him together with interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit within 30 days from the date of this order failing which interest @ 9% shall be charged over and above the earlier interest from the date of order to the date of payment. In addition to that OP No. 1 & 2 have to pay Rs 3,000/- as cost of litigation.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 23rd August, 2018 under the seal of the Forum.
