IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/153/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
17.09.18 01.11.18 04.10.23
Complainant: Kazi Pervez Mumtaz
S/O Lt Kazi Anisul Mowla,
Vill& P.O. & P.S. Salar, Pin-742401
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. The Manger, NEOSA Electronics
63/2,Babulbona Road, Madhupur,
P.O. & P.S. Berhampore, Pin-742101
2.Deepa Raisinghani
Regional Customer Relation East,
Kolkata, Sony India Pvt. Ltd, Ps Arcadia Central,
5th Floor Plot No. 4A, Abanindra Thakur Sarani (Camac Stret)
Kolkata-17
3.The Manager
Sony India Pvt. Ltd. P.S. Arcadia Central,
5th Floor, Plot No. 4A Abanindra
Nath Thakur Sarani( Cmac Street) Kol-17
4. The Manager
Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-18 Mohan Co-Operativer Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, Delhi-110044
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Rajdip Goswami
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : Nilabja Dutta
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Kazi Pervez Mumtaz (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Neosa Electronics and Ors. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant is bonafide consumer of products of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Co. He along with his family members has purchased lots of sony products time to time. The Complainant purchased a sony bravia TV set on 01.01.12 by paying near about a sum of Rs. 80,000/- only.
The Complainant have been suffering from serious ANCA Vascularities since July 2016 and he is now in critical condition and under treatment of CMC Vellore. The doctors of the said hospital advised him not to move anywhere. So he is to confine himself in a room whole of the day and he is helplessly, to pass his entire painful time of the days by watching TV program and his family members are also watching TV program with him.
The said TV set unfortunately became out of order on 09.03.18 and then and there the Complainant communicated the said fact company vide job No. J80776779 dated 29.03.18. Thereafter Neosa Electronics, Berhampore Murshidabad, OP No.1 the service provider of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Sent its representative to the house of the Complainant and after examining the same he advised him to communicate the said fact to the company and requested to the said company to provide service for repairing the same.
The Complainant has communicated the said fact to the company by complain No. 04652862 and he repeatedly requested to repair the same on 30th and 31st March, 2018 and 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 9th and 16th day of April, 2018 through e-mail and the representatives of the said company, OP No.2 have acknowledged those e-mail by her letter dated 20.04.18. The OPs are legally liable to provide service for repairing the same as and when required. So they cannot avoid to provide service.
The Complainant and his family members cannot watch TV program still now. On 18.05.18, the Complainant sent letters through regd. Post with A/D to the OP (b) to (d) requesting further to repair the said TV set but they did not pay any heed to the said letter.
Thereafter on 12.07.18 the Complainant sent a letter to Neosa Electronics, Berhampore, OP No. A requesting further to repair the said TV set but the OP No. A unfortunately refused the said letter.
Finding no other alternatives, the Complainant filed this instant case for appropriate relief and prayed to direct the OPs to repair the said TV set failing which please be directed to replace the said TV set and handed over a new same TV set to the Complainant and also to pass an order directing the OP to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation cost to the Complainant.
The OPs are contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. Their specific defence case is that the OP No.4 provided a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.
It is also submitted that the warranty clause (7) clearly says that if the product is more than 5 years old then in such a scenario, the company has the right to decline repair services. The extract of the said warranty terms is mentioned herein below:
(Clause 7) ‘’We reserve the right to decline repair service of products if the product is more than 5 years old or if the product is damaged extensively or the condition had deteriorated such that reliable repair service cannot be guaranteed or if the failure is caused due to lightning, ingress of water, fire or if the product has been attended (repair service or modification) by any unauthorized person or if parts are procured by customer from any other source.’’
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point Nos. 1,2&3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. The record shows that 20.07.23 was fixed for hearing of argument but the Complainant was found absent on call, but the Ld. Advocate for the OP was present. Such being the position, 04.10.23 was fixed for hearing of argument. But today also i.e. on 04.10.23 the Complainant is found absent on call, but the Ld. Advocate for the OP is present. Such being the position, heard Ld. Advocate for the OP.
Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the warranty clause (7) clearly says that if the product is more than 5 years old then in such a scenario, the company has the right to decline repair services. The extract of the said warranty terms is mentioned herein below:
(Clause 7) ‘’We reserve the right to decline repair service of products if the product is more than 5 years old or if the product is damaged extensively or the condition had deteriorated such that reliable repair service cannot be guaranteed or if the failure is caused due to lightning, ingress of water, fire or if the product has been attended (repair service or modification) by any unauthorized person or if parts are procured by customer from any other source.’’
We peruse the materials on record. The Complainant purchased the Sony Bravia TV set on 01.01.12. The said TV set became out of order on 09.03.18. Such being the position it is clear that the said TV set was more than 5 years old at the time of filing of the instant case. We peruse clause 7 of the terms and conditions as provided by the Ld. Advocate for the OP.
Keeping in mind, the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the OP and considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 17.09.18 and admitted on 01.11.18. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/153/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member Member President.
