Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

This appeal is directed against the Order dated 26-05-2015, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit II (in short, District Forum), in C. C. No. 564/2014, whereby the complaint case has been allowed on contest.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP No. 1 thereof and M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. have preferred this appeal.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant purchased a television set at a cost of Rs. 56,900/- from the OP No. 2 on 02-05-2014.  The said television set allegedly became defunct within few months of its use and so a complaint was lodged in this regard on 30-07-2014.  Based on such complaint, one service technician visited the residence of the Complainant on 05-08-2014 and after checking the television set, he opined that main board of the said television set needed replacement due to manufacturing defect.  It is further stated that he was not ready to the proposal of M/s Sony Services personnel to replace the main board and so he requested them to replace the television set altogether to avoid recurrence of such problems.  Allegedly, although he informed M/s Sony about his desire to get the television set replaced instead of repairing the same, the company has not taken any initiative to fulfill his wish.  Hence, the case was filed before the Ld. District Forum.

Case of the OPs, on the other hand, is that, the company provides warranty on its products and its liability by virtue of such warranty strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.  After inspecting the defunct television set, service engineer of the company informed the Complainant that the B-Board would be replaced free of cost as per warranty condition.  However, the Complainant refused to allow the service engineer to service the LED and carry out necessary repair.  It is further submitted that in terms of warranty conditions, the company was only liable for repairing the defects and that it had no such obligation to replace the product.  Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point for determination is whether the impugned order suffers from any infirmity or not.

Decision with reasons

The bone of contention, as it appears, hovers surrounding the strident reluctance on the part of the Appellants to replace the defective television set, as asked for by the Respondent No. 1.  In this regard, it is argued by the Respondent No. 1 that in the warranty card, it has been clearly mentioned that the said television set was free from any manufacturing defects.  According to the Respondent No. 1, fault with the main board, which is considered as the heart of any television set, can in no way be treated as minor defect, it was definitely a manufacturing defect and as such, the Appellants cannot refuse replacing the same.  On the other hand, it is contended by the Appellants that terms and conditions of the warranty was binding on both sides.  In terms of the warranty conditions, the liability of the Appellants stood confined to servicing the defect only and replacing the same was beyond the scope of warranty conditions.  Therefore, the Appellants were helpless.

So, basically the dispute boils down to this: whether the Appellants are liable to replace the defective television set, or not.

According to Cambridge Dictionary, ‘Warranty’ denotes ‘a written promise from a company to repair or replace a product that develops a fault within a particular period of time….’.  The Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries describes ‘warranty’ as “a written agreement in which a company selling something promises to repair or replace it if there is a problem within a particular period of time”

Therefore, going by the literal meaning of the word ‘warranty’, we are of opinion that citing distorted meaning of ‘warranty’, Appellants cannot seek immunity from the responsibility of replacing the defective product as contended by them.  

It may be mentioned here that where consent is obtained by fraud or under compulsion or under some mistaken impression, such consent is not treated as a valid consent. Consent should in any case be free and voluntary.

It is common knowledge that warranty clauses are tailor made by manufacturers across the board to suit their own purposes, thereby throwing the interests of consumers through the window.  Such one sided terms and conditions, no doubt, runs counter to the principles of public policy and hence unconscionable. The irony is that although it is the hapless consumer, who burns a deep hole in his/her pocket to buy a product, especially if it happens to be a branded item that comes at a premium, he/she is left with no bargaining power to negotiate the terms of warranty clauses. 

If one analyzes the implications of warranty clause in proper perspective, there would probably be no two opinions as to the fact that had the Respondent No. 1 objected to any of the warranty clauses, he would not be able to buy the television set at all.  Therefore, it cannot be said that he voluntarily gave his due consent to the terms and condition set out in the warranty card of the Appellants. In any case, no such documentary proof is placed on record to show that the terms and conditions of the product were properly explained to the Respondent No. 1 by the Respondent No. 2 prior to selling the television set to the Respondent No. 1.  

That apart, although it is stated in the warranty clause that the service centres of Sony India would repair the defective product, significantly, there is no such stipulation in the warranty card to the effect that under any circumstances it would not replace the defective product.  

Finally, it is the settled position of law that in case of manufacturing defect, irrespective of the stipulations contained in the warranty card, it is obligatory on the part of the manufacturer/seller/service centres to replace the defective product with a new defect free product of similar specification. To think, therefore, that by virtue of warranty clause, one enjoys absolute immunity from replacing a defective product, is nothing but a misnomer.

Having said that, we find that the Appellants offered to replace the defective B-Board free of cost.  In our considered view, in the given facts and circumstances, Appellants definitely deserve an opportunity to prove their mettle be repairing the defect to the utmost satisfaction of the Respondent No. 1. Failure to prove equal to the job, we must make it clear, would warrant replacement of the defective television set with a new defect free television set of similar specification or refund the price of the same.   

The appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that A/834/2015 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Respondent No. 1 and ex parte against the Respondent No. 2.  Appellants are directed to repair the defective television set to the entire satisfaction of the Respondent No. 1 and offer additional warranty for a period of nine months from the date of successful repairing of the television set.  However, in case the Appellants fail to repair the television set to the utmost satisfaction of the Respondent No. 1, it would be liable to replace the defective television set with a new defect free television set of similar specification having warranty period of one year, else refund the price of the television set to the Respondent No. 1.  The Appellants are directed to comply with this order within 30 days of this order.