IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
C C No. 394/2014
Wednesday, the 29th day of June, 2016.
Petitioner : George Joseph,
Karingozhackal,
Ezhachery P.O.
Ezhacherykara,
Vellilappalli village,
Meenachil Taluk.
(Adv. Manu Tom Thomas)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
# 239 Pantrapalya,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore – 560 039.
(Adv. Ajithan Namboothiri)
2) Madona Care Centre,
Kanjikuzhi, Kottayam.
3) Rajesh Kallarackal,
Kallarackal Agencies,
Pala.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
The complainant filed the complaint on 10/12/2014. The averments in brief are as follows,
I) The complainant purchased a DVD Home Theatre System Model No. DZ310/CE12 on 30/04/2010 from the 3rd opposite party, the dealer, manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the authorised service agent. According to the complainant, he used the system sparingly. On 03/10/2011, he entrusted the system with the 3rd opposite party, complaining about the centre speaker as well as the subwoofer speaker were not functioning properly. He had tested the speakers connecting it with another system available in his shop and informed the complainant that the speakers were good worthy, but the complaint was with regard to the system itself. Accordingly the 3rd opposite party, entrusted the system with the 2nd opposite party for repair. The 2nd opposite party returned the system on 17/10/2011. But, the complainant noticed that, the speakers were not in a workable condition. Hence, he informed the 3rd opposite party again and service personnel visited his residence on 18/10/2011. But he could not rectify the compliant. He opined that, the complaint was with the Circuit Board and it was a manufacturing defect. For that, the system should be brought to the 2nd opposite party firm and he requested the complainant to sign in the Job memo Card. But the complainant refused to do so, as the system has been used only for a short period. The complainant sent a Lawyers notice on 28/10/11. Accordingly, two representatives from the 2nd opposite party approached the complainant on 11/11/11 and they demanded to handover the system to them. They took the system with them and repaired it on free of cost and returned. But, in the month of September 2012, again the same complaint noticed and it was entrusted with the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party sent it to the 2nd opposite party and they returned it on 15/10/2012 after repair. Again on 12/07/2014, the speakers were seemed to be dead and the set was again sent to the 3rd opposite party. But, after several months, there was no response from the part of the 3rd opposite party, the complainant contacted them. Then the 2nd opposite party demanded Rs.1,000/- for its repair. The complainant sent a Lawyer’s notice to the opposite parties informing his unwillingness to pay the said amount. Accordingly, the 2nd opposite party sent a reply stating bogus reasons. The complainant alleged that, the dates shown in the Job card were entirely different from the actual date of services by the opposite parties. According to him, the opposite parties were wilfully and fraudulently manipulated the Job Card. There was inordinate delay in repairing the system by the 2nd opposite party. The system was with them for all those days. The complainant alleged that, he had caused mental agony and hardships due to the act of the opposite parties. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant filed the complaint seeking the following reliefs,
- To direct the opposite parties to supply him a new Home Theatre system, same model and same features. Otherwise, the opposite parties shall refund an amount of Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 12% from 30/04/2010.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay compensation to a tune of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for the mental agony and punitive loss.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the delay in repair and thereby preventing the complainant from using it.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as the costs of this litigation.
II) The 1st and the 2nd opposite parties filed a joint version on 25/09/2015 contending that, the complaint is a concocted one. The opposite parties admitted the purchase of the Sony Home Theatre system by the complainant. According to the opposite parties, the complainant had not placed on record any document or averment stating the date of purchase and the dealer from where the said system was purchased. According to them, the 1st opposite party only provides warranty for one year only and it’s 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. The opposite parties contended that, the complaint was registered on 22/07/2014 with the opposite party 2 with respect to ‘No sound’. On inspection it was learnt that, the ‘Audio section stream IC & O/PIC’ was faulty. Since the Home Theatre was 4 years old, the faulty parts could be repaired / replaced only on chargeable basis and not for free of cost as the warranty had already expired. The 2nd opposite party prepared an estimate of Rs.2,899/- to conduct the repair. But it was refused by the complainant as it is to be repaired on free of cost. According to the opposite parties, the complaint is only an experimental one and filed it with a lucrative eye. According to the opposite parties, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their costs.
III) In spite of receiving notice from the Forum, the 3rd opposite party did not appear before the Forum to answer the claim of the complainant.
IV) Based on the pleadings and contentions, the following Points arise for consideration;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- As to relief and costs?
V) Evidence in this case consists of the Chief and Proof Affidavits of the complainant and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, Ext.A1 to A6 documents which were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts. B1 & B2 from the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.
VI) We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of both sides and have also gone through the materials on record.
VII) Point No.1
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a DVD Home Theatre System, Model No.DZ310CE12 from 3rd opposite party, the authorised dealer on 30/04/2010. The complainant used the same without any problem until 30/10/2011. On 30/10/2011, the centre speaker and the subwoofer speaker got damaged and it was entrusted with the 3rd opposite party. According to the complainant, the product in question was entrusted for repair in 18/10/2011, 11/11/2011 and 12/07/2014. The complainant alleged that, he had used the product once in a while in the whole one year. The opposite parties demanded the complainant an amount of Rs.1,000/- for it’s repair.
The complainant filed Proof Affidavit in terms of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the Legal Notice sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party on 28/10/2011. Ext.A2 is a receipt of acknowledgement of the product on 11/11/2011 given by the opposite party. Ext.A3 is also a receipt dtd.16/11/2011 given to the complainant while returning the product. Ext.A4 dtd.22/11/2011, copy of reply notice sent by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A5 is a copy of Lawyers notice dtd.29/08/2014. Ext.A6 is copy of reply notice dtd.18/09/2014 sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.B1 is a copy of Board of Resolution dtd.07/02/2014. Ext.B2 is a format of the warranty terms provided by the 1st opposite party.
On a close perusal of Ext.A6, it is seen that the 1st opposite party has not disputed the purchase of the Home Theatre on 30/04/2010. They stated that it was used for nearly 1 year 6 months before approaching the Service Centre on 13/10/2011. The complaint reported as ‘Not working’ vide Job
No. WS 100966711101300330. The repair was done on free of cost. the 2nd service request was on 20/10/2011, complained of ‘subwoofer not working’ vide Job No. HS 1096671110200046100201. This time also the Service Engineer found that there was no problem in the set and the set was working fine as per the standards. According to them, as a precautionary measure, resoldering was done by them in the main board on 14/11/2011. The 4th service request was sent on 21/09/2012 for symptom of ‘push power protect’ vide job No,J21038949. It was found that the output IC was defective and needed to replace it. So, an estimate of Rs.881/- was fixed and informed the complainant. But the complainant did not approve it. This time also the defect was rectified on free of cost on 15/10/2012. The last service request was received on 22/07/2014 with a complaint of ‘No sound’ vide Job No. J41606535. Upon inspection, it was detected that the Audio ICs’ were defective and needed replacement. Accordingly an estimate of Rs.2,899/- was shared to the complainant. The complainant did not approve it. Thus, the product was kept with the opposite parties.
From Ext.A6 itself shows that, on several dates, several complaints were lodged with the opposite parties and they rectified the defects time to time, which goes on to show that the Home Theatre system has got some defects and was not performing well and continued to develop snags repeatedly resulting in non-performance.
1st opposite party produced B2 document, a format, would show, the warranty details provided by them. The complainant has not produced the warranty card before the Forum. Even if the warranty given to the product in question is for 1 year, after the warranty period the product showed defects in several times. According to the 1st opposite party any repairs to the same would be beyond the warranty period of one year. The 1st opposite party stated Ext.A6 that, they prepared an estimate of Rs.2,899/-. The 1st opposite party stated that the product has not been repaired because the complainant was not inclined to pay for the repairs. We think, if at all the product has remained with the opposite parties, without being collected by the complainant or without being retuned to him by the 2nd opposite party, it is entirely due to the fault of the 2nd opposite party. As a responsible repairer, duly authorised by the manufacturer, the 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party was duty bound to have it repaired and inform the complainant to collect the same and in case they were entitled for repair charges, on payment of such charges. Here in this case, the 2nd opposite party has not cared to rectify the defects. When the complainant refused the estimate prepared by the 2nd opposite party, they left it with an adamant stand to not repair that. It is apparent that, a series of complaints were reported with the opposite parties. We are of the view that, the complaint is entitled for free repairs.
We are unable to accept the self serving statements of the complainant that there was manufacturing defect to the product in question as contended by the complainant for such defect has not been proved by the complainant by cogent evidence. A self serving statement of the complainant alone, without any material on record would not be sufficient to accept the said claim as proved. Here, the product had any manufacturing defect, it would not have worked well for nearly 1 year and 6 months even though it used sparingly. So, there was no question of full refund or replacement. But the complainant is to be amply compensated. We find deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, Point No.1, is found in favour of the complainant.
VIII) Point No.2
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.
Therefore,
- The 1st Opposite Parties are directed to repair the Sony Home Theatre Set on free of cost and handed over to the complainant in an efficient, workable condition.
- The Opposite Parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation.
- The Opposite Parties are also Ordered to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as the Costs of litigation.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry @ 12% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2016.
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Lawyers notice dtd.28/10/11
Ext.A2 : Receipt dtd.11/11/11
Ext.A3 : Receipt dtd.16/11/11
Ext.A4 : Reply notice dtd.22/11/11
Ext.A5 : Lawyers notice dtd.29/08/2014
Ext.A6 : Notice dtd.18/09/14.
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1 : Copy of Board Resolution dtd.07/02/2014
Ext.B2 : Copy of the warranty terms provided by the 1st opposite party.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
