Manufacturers tend to ignore service issues faced by consumers at the hands of service centres which are usually outsourced or franchised. But they cannot escape legal liability for any deficiency by their service centre.
Case Study: Nishad Kulkarni had purchased a Sony Cyber Shot Digital Camera for Rs 12,500 from Sony Exclusive, the company’s authorized showroom in Aurangabad. The camera was covered under an All India Service Warranty valid for three years. The warranty did not cover risk or damage due to accident, lightning, water, fire, other acts of God, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control.
The camera failed to function just three months after its purchase on April 29, 2009. Kulkarni took it to Creative Electronics, the manufacturer’s authorized service centre, complaining that there was “no power when switched on”. The service centre recorded that waterlogging had caused rust on the battery, and noted that there were some normal scratches on the camera. It said the camera was non-repairable, so no estimate could be given.
Kulkarni wrote to Sony, requesting that the camera be either repaired or replaced, but his letter was ignored. Aggrieved, he complained to the Aurangabad district forum against Sony, its dealer and the service centre.
The dealer and service centre ignored the forum’s notice and proceeded ex parte. However, Sony denied having received Kulkarni’s letter. It said that it could not be held responsible or liable for its dealer or service centre. It contended that the camera was damaged by Kulkarni’s mishandling, as was evident from the water droplets the camera and the rust on the battery connections. Since damage due to waterlogging was excluded under the warranty, repairs would have to be paid for. It wanted the complaint dismissed saying the camera had no manufacturing defect.
The forum accepted Sony’s stand, observing that waterlogging might have occurred due to Mumbai’s humid weather, and dismissed the complaint. Kulkarni then appealed to the Maharashtra state commission, which too dismissed the appeal. He then approached the National Commission.
The National Commission wondered how Sony could claim there were water droplets in the camera without ever having inspected it. It did not accept Sony’s contention that the camera was not repaired as Kulkarni was unwilling to pay for repair, as this was belied by its service centre’s report, saying the camera was irreparable. It should have proved its claim of ‘no manufacturing defect’ by sending the camera for a test, analysis or expert opinion, but did not do so.
It observed that Sony’s claim of not having received Kulkarni’s letter was falsified by the postal receipt showing it was received by the company. The commission indicted Sony for being aware about the problem with the camera, but not solving it, and instead, merely toeing the line of its service centre. It held the company liable for the deficiency of its service centre.
In its judgement of October 8, 2015, delivered by Justice D.K. Jain for the Bench along with M. Shreesha, the commission directed Sony to either repair the camera at its own cost, make it fully functional, and extend the original warranty, or refund the purchase price. This order was to be complied within four weeks of handing over the camera to the service centre. Sony could also replace the camera with the same or a better model to earn customer goodwill. Also, it was directed to pay Rs.20,000 to Kulkarni towards litigation costs.
Impact: A company must independently look into a consumer complaint rather than blindly relying on its service centre.