THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 598/2013

Dated this the 7^th day of December 2015

          ( Present:  Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                          :  President)              

                                                                       Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                                 : Member

                                                                              Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB              : Member

ORDER

Present: Beena Joseph, Member

            This petition was filed on 16.12.2013.  The gist of the complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Sony  Bravia LCD Flat Tv from the opposite parties on 14.08.2013  by paying Rs.45,500/-, within two months the display of the TV turned blue.  The Technician of the opposite party examined the TV and stated that the picture panel needs replacement which cost Rs.21,390/- which is the 50% cost of the product.  Complainant contacted the opposite parties but they were not ready to repair the TV free of cost .  Complainant claims that at the time of sale of the product they offered that, their products were high quality, it will get life for seven to eight years.  Believing the words of opposite party he purchased the above TV, but surprisingly his TV became defective that was only because of inferior substandard material used in the TV.  Hence he was cheated by the opposite party by their illegal trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

            Notice were issued to both parties , both of them appeared and filed version stating that the petition is not maintainable either law or on facts.  The above complaint was filed on vexatious grounds and they denied all the allegations leveled against them.  Sony India Private Ltd is a well known company dealing with electronic items and they provide only a limited warranty to its products and their liability is strictly according to the conditions of warranty.  In this case petitioner used the LCD TV for more than two years and the warranty period was over, hence the alleged complaint can be rectified only on actual cost.  This was properly intimated to the complainant.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party.  So it is liable to be dismissed.

Points to be considered.

1. Is there any consumer relationship between the parties.?
2. Is there any illegal trade practice or deficiency of service adopted by the opposite party?
3. If yes, what are the relief to be granted.

Point No.:-.  In this matter petitioner filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1.  Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the complainant’s side.  Ext.A1 is the estimate, A2  is the letter issued by the petitioner to the opposite party .  Ext.A3 is the reply given by the opposite  party.  It is admitted that petitioner was purchased a Sony Bravia  40 LCD TV which manufactured by opposite parties on 14.08.2011.  Regarding the sale of the product there was no dispute , hence it can be safely conclude that petitioner is a consumer of opposite party as defined in the act.  This point is found in favour of the petitioner.

Point No.2:- The complainant here in specifically states that within two months from the date of purchase of TV it became blue, and he had intimated the  authorized technician of the opposite party and they repaired it but the complaint was repeating , lastly the technician told that picture panel has to be replaced which may cost Rs.21390/-.  Against which complainant preferred complaint to the Company then they are responded that it can happened with all electronic devices and he has to replace the panel at his expense.  The main case of the complaint is that he had purchased the Sony products on their assurance that it may have life for at least seven to eight years.  But in this matter admittedly the TV became defective within two years.  Ordinary common man will not spend Rs.45,500/-for   two years for use of a high profile TV .  Admittedly the TV became defective due to the complaint of picture panel which worth Rs.21390/-.  This shows that the main component of the TV is defective.  This  may cause only because of the substandard or inferior quality of product.  In such situation the opposite party can not resolt the help of warranty. More over the respondents are selling the products by fascinating offers to the customers that may account to illegal trade practice. So the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects of the product which sold by them at a concessional rate. In the above matter, it is born out from the records that, warranty period was over, hence petitioner is liable to pay Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of the product.   In the result the above petition is allowed in part.

            We direct the opposite parties to rectify the defects within one month by accepting Rs.15000/- from the complainant.  No order as to cost or compensation. Comply the order within one month from the date of receiving the copy of the order.

Dated this the 7^th  day of December 2015.

Date of filing :16.12.2013.

           SD/- MEMBER                    SD/-  PRESIDENT                 SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Estimate issued by the opposite party dtd.28.11.2013

A2. Letter issued by the petitioner to the opposite party dtd.12.12.13.

A3.Reply given by the opposite party.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

 Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Shynima Sathyan( Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None

                                                                                                                        Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT