Order No. 13 dt. 17/08/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one Sony 46W950A 46” LED TV set from M/s Great Eastern Trading Co. (o.p.no.2) an authorized sales outlet of M/s Sony India (P) Ltd, 32, Hazra Road, Manuya Towers (G.P.) Kolkata-700029, P.S. Bhowanipur (o.p. no.1) at a price of Rs.1,04,900/- including tax under Invoice no.11/SA/1415/02449 dated 28.05.2014 with warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. As the product was delivered on 03.06.2015, the validity of warranty had been refixed on 03.04.2016.Complainant noticed thescratches on the screen of the TV and passed over the cognition to the op-2 and on their advice to the authorized Service Centre of M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltdon 30.12.2014. The Service Center of the company by its engineer inspected the set , recorded the observation as “Multiple patches on Screen” and apprised the company accordingly. Complainant on the other hand had tried entreating the Service Center, time & again,to get the service from the service center. O.p-1, in turn, issued a letter to the complainant apprising the observation of physical inspectionofthe product and requesting the complainant to bear the cost of repairing of the same as estimated by them. Beingaggrievedwithsuch unexpected step by op-1.complainant lodged this complaint praying for replacement of the defective set with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
Ld Lawyer of op-1 & op-2 appeared before this Forum and submitted w/v on their behalf for contesting the case.Ld lawyer of the o.p.1 and o.p.2 argued with the submission that o.p.1 is engaged in the business of distributing and marketing of LCD and LED Televisions and other electronic goods under the brand name, SONY and it holds an enviable position in the Television industry in India. The liability of the o.ps lies strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it on its products and the o.ps cannot be held liable for claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. Clause-3 of the terms of warranty provided by Sony India Pvt Ltd has clearly stated that ‘this warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to misuse which are not in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product. The terms of the warranty are not applicable in cases where the product has been suffered damage due to non-precautionary activitiesby the complainant. The complainant approached the authorized service centre of the o.ps for the first time on 30.12.2014 ie, after seven months from the date of purchase of the said TV set. Upon physical inspection of the set it was inferred that the damage was caused by external factor. Upon inspection by the Service Engineer, an estimate of Rs.40,220/- was provided to the complainant, which was never approved by the complainant. The TV has no suffering from any manufacturing defect and the complainant had not faced such suffering for a period of seven months without any problem.In the present case, the complainant has sought to make wrongful gains by way of this complaint.The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by way of this present complaint.
Ld lawyer of the complainant argued that o.p.2 did not pay heed to the cry of the complainant about the defect arose therein on the TV Screen. Again, o.p.1 also avoided the problem by sending letter dated 09.01.2015. The goods delivered to the complainant was defective since beginning and the complainant had to accept poor service out of it.Complainant has argued that the damage caused to the screen was not due to external cause. Therefore, complainant had to suffer severe mental agony and as such complainant compelled to file the case praying replacement of the TV set.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following points are to be decided :
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps or defect in goods ?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetitions of facts.
We have gone through the submission of the parties and evidences of affidavit in particular where from the admitted fact is that the complainant purchased the TV set on 28.05.2014, placed it for repair on 30.12.2014 and thus, used the set for 7 months continuously without any disturbance. As per the terms of the warranty, physical damage of the TV set is not covered in the warranty terms and conditions. Therefore, the complainant was informed that the subject TV set could not be repaired free of cost under the terms of the warranty. Service centre of o.p.1 attended the call of the complainant by inspection and reporting in the job sheet. O.p.1 has apprised the complainant about their observation after inspection and requested the complainant to bear the aftermath of the damage as the service centre cannot go beyond the periphery of the terms and conditions of warranty.
In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2508 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding that the terms of warranty were binding on the parties and that the liability undertaken in the contract between parties should be limited to the extent undertaken. O.ps are liable only to provide free of cost services on the TV set during warranty period when the defect has arisen due to improper material or workmanship in it and not when the defect is due to the mishandling of the handset by the complainant himself or by any other user. Complainant prayed for replacement of the set for which complainant would have to take step to prove the set a defective one. But any such initiative in this respect had not, at all, been undertaken by the complainant. Therefore, it is also an admitted fact that defect on the screen is not a manufacturing defect & the complainant has not taken any initiative to prove the defect as manufacturing defect.
With the above points in view we hold that the case made out by the complainant does not fall within the scope of deficiency in service on the part of o.ps or it has not been proved to be a defective one. Therefore, we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.176/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
