Re: No-refund policy of "Listening Room" Megamall.
When my cousin decided to buy his first DVD player, he asked me to recommend a good brand. Being a Pioneer fan, I recommended the DV 355 or DV 555K, the latest entry-level Pioneer players. Both are loaded with features, sport a handsome slim-line design, and are backed up by reliable performance and after-sales service.
On January 8, 2003, cousin bought a Pioneer DV 555K for P10,600.00 from "Listening Room" at the SM Megamall, a good retailer offering very competitive prices. Listening Room advised him to test the player at home and that if there is any defect, they will gladly replace it with a new unit within 3 weeks from the date of purchase.
Heto ngayon ang problema.
While playing clean, scratch-free original R1 and R3 DVD discs, the playback pauses, the picture pixellates, the player reloads and displays its "welcome" sign, then starts the program content all over again.
E ano pa kaya? E di namukha akong tanga. Panay ang rekomenda ko ng Pioneer, palpak naman pala.
We tried testing different R1 and R3 discs, checked voltage fluctuation, measured voltage output from the power outlet and used an AVR. Ayos naman lahat, pero ganoon pa rin ang depekto. I advised cousin to have the unit replaced. "OK lang 'yan", I said, "Kahit anong brand, may nakakalusot sa quality control kung minsan. Malabo naman na ganyan pa rin ang replacement unit kasi Pioneer 'yan".
So off he went to Listening Room on January 13, 2003 to ask for a replacement unit. Mabait naman ang staff. They just replaced the player with a new unit after cousin described the defect. No hassle.
Problema pa rin.
The second player had exactly the same defect as the first. E di ano pa nga ba? E di lalo akong nagmukhang tanga.
On January 21, 2003, since I happened to be at the Robinson's in Cainta, I went to the Listening Group's branch there called the "Listening in Style" and asked their tech guy about the 555K. To my utter disbelief, he confirmed that he had already witnessed other 555K units malfunction several times on his showroom display! He said that this surprised him since it's the first defective brand-new Pioneer model he's ever seen, and even the 355 and the old 533K were problem-free.
Realizing that another 555K replacement unit will not help, cousin called the Listening Room at Megamall and requested that his 555K be replaced with a 355 and that the price difference of P2,800.00 be refunded. However, he was informed by Minnie (the Listening Room cashier and OIC) that they can replace his 555K with a 355, but due to their no-refund policy, he should purchase other items from the store to cover the price difference.
When cousin said that he has no use for any other item in their inventory, Minnie offered to replace his 555K with Pioneer's next higher model (a progressive scan player), on the condition that payment for the corresponding price difference be made. Cousin politely refused, explaining that a progressive scan player will be an unnecessary expense on his part since his TV is a direct-view WEGA without progressive scan, but thanked Minnie anyway for her time.
When I learned about this unfortunate turn of events, I immediately wrote a letter stating that formal demand is hereby made upon the proprietor to pay a full refund within 5 days; otherwise, administrative and criminal actions will be filed against him forthwith for violation of the Consumer Act of the Philippines.
On January 22, 2003, cousin and I went to the Listening Room to issue a verbal demand for a full refund and, should they refuse, to personally serve a copy of the aforementioned demand letter.
At the store, Minnie made a few phone calls in an attempt to help diagnose the problem, but since we had already tried the tests she suggested, we had to insist on a full refund because the defect appeared to be inherent in their entire inventory of 555K units.
Una, ayaw ni Minnie mag-refund ng P2,800.00 balance dahil sa no-refund company policy, pero pumayag na rin pagkatapos ng kulitan.
Ang deperensiya, biglang sumabat si Oliver, the store's manager and/or proprietor. (In all fairness, mukhang OK naman si Oliver, but try asking for a refund and see Dr. Jekyll transform into Mr. Hyde.)
An unpleasant exchange between us ensued, the following being the respective positions of each side:
My position is that under R.A. 7394, otherwise known as "The Consumer Act of the Philippines", defective merchandise sold may be replaced, repaired or returned with a full refund at the option of the customer; and if the vendee chooses to be refunded in full, the vendor's refusal to comply is punishable by up to P50,000.00 fine or imprisonment of up to 5 years or both at the discretion of the Court, without prejudice to any liability incurred under the warranty.
On the other hand, Oliver's position is that a no-refund policy is not prohibited as long as the vendor readily replaces the defective item with other merchandise chosen by the customer, and that a no-refund policy cannot be considered illegal since the said policy is allegedly practiced by all vendors.
As a compromise, Oliver offered to replace cousin's 555K with a 355 and promised to refund the P2,800.00 balance, provided that there are no dents or scratches on the unit to be replaced. Cousin accepted the offer kasi 'yon lang naman daw talaga ang original request niya.
The following day, cousin brought in the 555K, then Minnie replaced it with a 355 and refunded his P2,800.00 as agreed.
Despite our differences, I can vouch that Oliver is true to his word. Totoo 'yung warranty nila na "replace defective unit within 3 weeks". Basta sinabi nilang babayaran ka nila bukas, magbabayad sila bukas. No written agreement necessary.
Cousin says his 355 is working fine so far.
