Intentional Withholding Of Spare Parts Amounts To Restrictive Trade Practice, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Sony, Its Service Agent Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a TV manufactured by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (“Sony”) from Lulu Connect (“Retailer”) for Rs. 62,000. The TV screen started exhibiting 'flickering' issues. The Complainant submitted a TV malfunction complaint with Sony's customer care department. After a day, M/s Madona Electronics (“Service Agent”) contacted the Complainant from its Edapally service centre. Subsequently, a technician and his assistant inspected the faulty TV at the Complainant's house on the same day. They took the TV for service, along with copies of the bill and warranty card, and provided the Complainant with a 'Service Job Sheet' noting the defect as 'Display Flickering'.

The Service Agent demanded Rs. 33,000/- for the service charge via phone. The Complainant rejected this demand and requested customer support. The Complainant engaged in a live chat with 'Sony Live Support' to report the service delay. The customer care officer acknowledged the receipt of the email. The Service Agent party sent an estimate. Following a phone call, the Complainant emailed copies of the point-of-sale invoice and warranty, which were acknowledged. Sony's customer care personnel then offered a replacement over the phone, citing the unavailability of spare parts listed in the Service Agent's estimate. The Complainant sought further details on this replacement offer but received no response.

Later, the Complainant emailed to urge avoidance of further service delays, which was acknowledged. The Service Agent emailed prices for three different TV models, asking the Complainant to purchase one at a special price. The Complainant realized this was an attempt to sell a new unit at a high price rather than repair or replace the defective TV.

The Complainant sent a notice to Sony and the Service Agent. Sony failed to reply to the said notice. The Complainant met Sony's 'Area Service in Charge' at its corporate office in Ernakulam, handed over a copy of the notice, and repeated the request for a replacement. Sony replied online by suggesting an exchange for a new unit at a special price due to spare part unavailability.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint against Sony and the Service Agent in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”).

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission observed that the Complainant was a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the complaint was maintainable. It was filed seeking relief for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices caused by Sony's and its authorized Service Agent's failure to refund the cost of the TV. The Complainant insisted on a defect-free repair or replacement of the TV, which Sony and the Service Agent failed to provide, resulting in a deficiency in service.

The District Commission held that Sony, as the manufacturer, had a responsibility to provide the necessary spare parts and repair or replace the defective TV. Further, the Service Agent had a duty to facilitate this process. Both Sony and the Service Centre failed to fulfil these obligations. This amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on their part. It was further held that when a manufacturer uses specific tactics to pressure the consumer into buying an additional product, it constitutes a 'restrictive trade practice' as defined under Section 2(1)(nnn) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, Sony was held liable for 'restrictive trade practice' as well.

Reliance was placed on Kailash Kumari vs Narendra Electronics [Revision Petition No. 40 of 1990], where it was held that intentional withholding of essential spare and consumable parts by manufacturers goes against the principle of 'right to repair'. It not only imposes a financial burden on customers but also contributes to environmental degradation.

Therefore, the District Commission directed Sony to refund Rs. 43,400/- to the Complainant after considering the depreciation of the TV at the rate of 30%. Both Sony and the Service Agent were directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards legal costs. Sony was also directed to ensure the availability of spare parts and repair services.

Case Title: Abdul Razzak vs Sony India and Anr.

Case No.: C.C. No. 461/2019

Advocate for the Complainant: S.A. Razzak

Advocate for the Dealer: N.J. Ashwin

Date of Pronouncement: 20th July 2024