Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/45/2015

Sony India Pvt. Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.K.Seetharaman - Opp.Party(s)

J.B. Karunakaran

08 Sep 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

              TMT.Dr.  S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                                 MEMBER  

 

F.A.No.45/2015

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.67/2013, dated 26.08.2014 on the file of the District Commission, Erode.)

 

  THE 09^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021.

 

1.   Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

      (A Company incorporated under

      the Companies Act, 1955 )

      Having its Registered Office at 

      A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

      Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.                    1^st Appellant/1^st Opposite Party

 

2.   Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

      Branch Office, 3^rd Floor,

      1025/1, Skanda Square

      Avinashi Road,

      Coimbatore – 641 018                                         2^nd Appellant/2^nd Opposite party  

.

 

                   - Vs –

 

1.   A.K., Seetharaman,

      S/o. N. Anbalagan,

      D.No.19/13,  Om Kaliamman Koil Street,

      Tiruchengode Town,

      Namakkal District.                                             1^st Respondent/Complainant

 

2.   Zine Technology.

      252/2, Pavalam Street,

      Municipal Colony,

      Erode – 638 994.                                              2^nd Respondent/3^rd Opposite Party   

   

Counsel for the Appellants 1 & 2/Opposite parties 1 & 2:  M/s.J.P. Karunakaran

Counsel for the Respondent-1/Complainant                 :  Served & Called absent    

Counsel for the Respondent-2/3^rd opposite party         :  Served & called absent.

                This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 08.09.2021 and on hearing the arguments of the appellants’ side and on perusing the material records,   this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE  THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT. (Open Court)    

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Erode in C.C.No.67/2013, dated 26.08.2014, allowing the complaint.   

2.      For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Erode. 

3.      The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows; - The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the opposite parties 1 and 2 advertised in the newspapers that they are very big company having lot of customers in Laptop business. On seeing the advertisement, on 10.11.2012 the complainant purchased a SONY Laptop Model No.SVE 15126 CN/W, serial No.SO1-7004745-D from the 3^rd opposite party who is the dealer of the opposite parties 1 & 2.   Within few days from the date of purchase, the complainant noticed some problem in the Laptop i.e., whenever the Laptop was switched on, there is no display in the screen and it was automatically switched off.  Hence, the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party for rectification and he advised the complainant to contact the authorised service centre of the opposite parries 1 & 2, K.G. Electronics, Sony Service Centre at Peelamedu, Coimbatore.   Accordingly, on 10.12.2012, the complainant approached the said service centre and handed over the Laptop and after repairing they requested the complainant to come and collect the Laptop on 15.12.2012 accordingly, the complainant received the Laptop.  Within few weeks the same problem occurred again and hence the complainant reported the same to the 3^rd opposite party who again advised the complainant to contact the service centre.  Accordingly, on 23.01.2013, the complainant handed over his Laptop for the second time to the authorised service centre and the complainant was asked to come and collect the Laptop on 31.01.2013 accordingly he received the Laptop from the service centre. At that time, they informed the complainant that the earlier problems crept in the laptop was rectified, the mother board was changed and some minor repairs were also done and returned the laptop to the complainant on 31.01.2013. When the complainant received the laptop, he enquired the 3^rd opposite party as to why the same problem had occurred again and again within short period of purchase, to which the 3^rd opposite party replied that no problem would arise in future and if any problem will arise, they would provide a new laptop. Thereafter, when the complainant switched on the laptop, the mouse did not function and the laptop worked in a slow speed.  Therefore, the complainant was put to great mental agony and he was not in a position to use the laptop for his urgent works. In fact, right from the purchase, the laptop has not been working properly.  When the complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party in person it was promised that the old laptop would be replaced with a new one of the same model.   But, the 3^rd opposite party refused to change the laptop as promised and hence the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties which was received by the opposite parties.  After the receipt of notice, Sony India Private Limited, Customer Care Division, Chennai had sent a letter to the complainant requesting him to deposit the laptop. Since the Laptop was not properly rectified on earlier two occasions, the complainant did not hand over the laptop to the service centre.  Though the warranty period is not yet elapsed, the 3^rd opposite party was not cared to rectify the defects completely and hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission for a direction to the opposite parties either to replace the old and defective laptop with a new one without any defect of the same model or in alternative to pay the purchase cost of Rs.39,990/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of purchase i.e., on 10.11.2012 till realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the negligence and deficiency in service committed by them and another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant with costs. 

4.           The complaint was resisted by the 1^st opposite party by filing a written version contending inter alia that the complainant purchased a Sony Vaio Laptop bearing model No.SVE 15126 CN on 10.11.2012.  The 1^st opposite party provided the laptop to the complainant with limited warranty annexing with the terms and conditions of the said warranty.  Therefore, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for the claim falling outside the scope of warranty.  In fact, the authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party is liable to provide repair at free of cost on their product only during the warranty period and that too in cases of defect due to improper materials or workmanship and not when the defect arises due to an external cause and further the warranty is provided on the product and not the guarantee.  Therefore, the question of replacing the product on free of cost basis and the refund of the entire amount of the same does not arise. In the warranty terms, it is also clear that in case the customer faces any problem in the product, then they should directly approach the authorised service centres of the 1^st opposite party whose details are provided on the warranty sheet.  The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party with the complaint of “no display” for rectification on 10.12.2012 and the laptop was duly inspected and the motherboard was replaced and the laptop was delivered to the complainant on 15.12.2012 in perfectly working condition.  Again, the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party on 23.01.2013 with the complaint of “blue screen error” and on inspection it was found that there were software related issues in the laptop. However, since the factory settings could not be restored, the motherboard was replaced once again to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and the laptop was handed over to the complainant on 31.01.2013.  According to the complainant, it is the problem of “touchpad not working and slow processing while using internet”, and hence the 3^rd opposite party suggested the complainant to deposit the laptop for inspection on 02.04.2013. However, the complainant refused to do so but demanded only for replacement of the laptop. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thus, the 1^st opposite party sough for dismissal of the complaint.       

5.         Before the District Commission, in order to prove his claim, the complainant filed his proof affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to A7.  On the side of the 1^st opposite party, proof affidavit was filed and no Exhibit was marked on their side. The opposite parties 2 & 3 were set ex-parte before the District Commission. 

6.        The District Commission after analysing the evidences adduced by both sides has come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the disputed laptop and all connected accessories with a new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties as well as for mental agony suffered by the complainant and  Rs.1500/- towards litigation charges.  Aggrieved over the above order of the District Commission, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties jointly have preferred this appeal before this Commission praying for setting aside the same. 

7.           The main submissions of the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the complainant purchased a Sony Vaio Laptop bearing model No.SVE15126CN  from the appellants on 10.11.2012  and within a period of one month the complainant approached the service centre of the opposite parties 1 & 2/appellants with a fault in display of the Laptop.  On inspection, it was discovered that the fault was occurring due to defect in mother board of the laptop which was duly replaced by the appellants/opposite parties at free of cost as it was covered under the warranty. Since the complainant alleged another defect and upon perusal it was again found defect in the mother board and hence once again the mother board was replaced as it was well within the warranty period and the same was handed over to the complainant on 31.01.2013.   After having received and used the laptop, the complainant sent a legal notice on 26.03.2013 to the opposite parties to which a suitable reply was sent on 17.04.2013.  As per the terms and conditions of the warranty,   an authorised service centre of the opposite parties alone can do service at free of cost during warranty period and accordingly, the authorised centre of the 1^st opposite party has repaired the laptop and handed it over to the complainant to the full satisfaction of the complainant.  Now, the demand of the complainant is that his laptop has to be replaced with a new one of the same.  The opposite parties have acted upon only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.             

8.        Keeping in mind the submissions made by the appellants,  we have carefully analysed the materials available on record.  As we have appreciated the factual aspect of the case at required length we refrain ourselves from reiterating it any further in the appeal. However, certain facts which are essential alone are dealt with hereunder for the purpose of this appeal. 

9.        In the present appeal the question that has to be decided is  that whether the complainant can ask for replacement of new laptop in the place of old and defective one.  On perusal of records, we find that he has used the laptop for a period of two months from the date of purchase. Thereafter, he found defect in the laptop and it was brought to the authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party for repairs. But, in spite of carrying out the repairs, the same problem has been occurring again and again.  But, the appellants are ready to rectify the defects at free of costs.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that after using the laptop for more than two months, now, the complainant cannot ask for replacement of the same especially when the opposite party is ready to rectify the defects in accordance with the warranty.  Therefore, we are not agreeing with the claim of the complainant for replacement of laptop and therefore the direction given by the District Commission to replace the old laptop with a new one is liable to be set aside.   However, frequent occurrence of defects in the laptop definitely would have caused great mental agony to the complainant for which he should be suitably compensated.  The District Commission has awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony which appears to be on the lower side and the same is hereby enhanced to Rs.20,000/- which would meet the ends of justice. With the above modifications, the appeal is allowed in part.   

10.           In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Commission as follows;-

                a)  The order directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the laptop and all connected accessories with a new one is hereby set aside.  Instead, the opposite parties are directed to do repair work in the laptop on production of it by the complainant at free of cost within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   

                 b)  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (instead of Rs.10,000/-) for negligence and deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties as well as mental agony suffered by the complainant.

              c) In other respects, the order of the District Commission is confirmed.  

     

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                  R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                    PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No  

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Sep/2021