Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 13-01-2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata – II (Central) in C.C. No. 524/2016, whereof the complaint has been partly allowed.

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that he purchased a LED Television Set manufactured by SONY at a cost of Rs. 67,687/- on 29-09-2015.  However, the said television set started malfunctioning very shortly of its installation.  Although his complaints were attended to by the authorized service centre of SONY, the problem still persisted.  In view of this, he asked the OPs to replace the defective television set, but in vain.  Hence, the complaint was filed.

It appears that, despite receipt of notice, the OPs did not turn up before the Ld. District Forum.  Accordingly, the case was decided ex parte.

Decision with reasons

On notice, Respondents turned up before us through their Ld. Advocate, who submitted that, on receipt of complaint, the same was duly attended and the repaired television set was handed over to the Appellant to his full satisfaction.  It is further argued by the Ld. Advocate that mere allegation of ‘manufacturing defect’ is not suffice.  Such allegation needs to be established through expert opinion which was not done in this case.  Accordingly, she prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

I have also heard the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant and perused the documents on record.

On a reference to the impugned order, I find that the Ld. District Forum took due notice of the fact that despite repeated servicing of the television set, the service engineer of the Respondent manufacturer remained unsuccessful in prescribing any permanent solution to the problem, resulting which similar problem resurfaced.  Accordingly, the complaint was allowed.  However, taking into consideration the fact that the Appellant used the television set for quite some time and also no expert opinion was furnished before it, the Ld. District Forum, at its wisdom directed the Respondent manufacturer to return half of the cost of the defective television set.

It is not in dispute that although the television set was repaired twice by the authorized service engineers of the Respondent Nos. 1&2, the recurrent power problem still persists.  It clearly demonstrates utter failure of the service centre people to remedy the situation on a permanent basis. 

There can be no quarrel as to the fact that after burning a deep hole in one’s pocket while purchasing a television set, no one will be ready to accept such irritation time and again.  It is a fact that the Appellant did not furnish any expert opinion to establish the factum of manufacturing defect.  However, the die in this regard is cast by the Hon’ble National Commission in Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Navin Nishchal & Anr. in R.P. No. 2207/2007.  Relevant portion of the observation of Hon’ble Commission is appended below:

“9. Section 13(1) (c) of the Act reads as under:-

13. Procedure on admission of complaint (1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.

[Emphasis supplied]  

10. From this, it is clear that reference to an appropriate laboratory (or, expert) for determination of defects in goods is not entirely mandatory. ……

11. It cannot even be the case of the petitioner that a buyer of a new car would repeatedly go to the workshops of the dealer/manufacturer with flimsy complaints because doing so entails expenditure of considerable effort, time and money to the buyer. Moreover, the fact that the engine assembly had to be changed altogether is a clear admission of the reality in this case, viz., there was some manufacturing defect in the engine assembly leading to excessive consumption of engine oil and emission of smoke. However, as rightly contended by Mr. Narain, the liability of the petitioner under the warranty ended with replacement of the defective engine assembly and, even with the finding that the District Forum arrived at, the direction to replace the car was not warranted in view of the law on the subject as settled by the Apex Court (as in the case already cited above). On the other hand, there is no reason to hold that the complainant/respondent 1 did not suffer physical harassment and mental agony as well as expenditure of time and money in the process of getting the defects in his new car attended to repeatedly. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant/respondent 1 ought to be suitably compensated”.

On going through the copies of job sheets on record, I find that on checking the subject television set, the service engineer found that the main board of the television set was defective and accordingly, the same was replaced on 19-12-2015.  However, the Appellant experienced similar problem with the television set within 7 months of previous repairing.  It is a clear pointer of the fact that the efficacy of previous repairing did not last long. 

As we know, LED television parts are available at a premium. To aggravate the situation further, authorized service centres of LED television sets nowadays tend to replace the entire power unit once the same develop defect upon expiry of warranty period. Therefore, if a costly television set cannot give trouble free service for at least 3/4 years since its purchase, no doubt, the economy is hit hard.  Of course, a bona fide consumer cannot be saddled with such recurring annoyance for no fault of him. 

Considering all these aspects, we are of view that the Respondents shall replace the defective television set with a new one of similar specification or refund the price thereof.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondents.  Respondents are directed to replace the subject television set with a defect free new television set of similar specification and extend comprehensive warranty for one year since delivery of the same or refund the purchase price of the same to the Appellant.  Respondents shall also pay compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-, respectively, to the Appellant.  Post compliance of this order in toto, Respondents shall be at liberty to take back the subject television set from the Appellant at their own cost and peril.  Respondents shall ensure strict compliance of the order within 40 days hence.  The impugned order stands modified accordingly.