Delhi

StateCommission

A/1066/2014

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANIL KUMAR CHOPRA - Opp.Party(s)

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 16.10.2015

Date of Arguments: 30.09.2015

Appeal No. 1066/14

In the matter of :

Soni India Pvt. Ltd.

A Company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 having its

Registered Office at

A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044

Through its Authorised Signatory                                                            …..........Appellant

 

 

Versus

Anil Kumar Chopra,

Son of Sh. S.C. Chopra,

Resident of 605, Prithvi Block,

Anusandhan Vihar,

DRDO Complex,

Lucknow Road,

Timnarpur,

Delhi-110054.                                                                                               ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)  

1. Challenge is the present appeal is to order dated 30.09.2014 passed by District Forum-North in complaint case No.251/13.  The complainant/respondent purchased a Soni Handycem, Model No.HDR-CX100E  E34 Sl. No.792924 from authorized dealer of OP-1.  OP-1 provided warranty of one year.  The Handycem was defective and created some problem.  The complainant gave the same to OP-2 for repairing on 01.05.2013.  After inspection, OP-2 opined that PWB FP flexible needed to be repaired and complainant paid Rs.1826/- towards cost of repairs and part was replaced. The complainant pointed out other defects and requested to repair the product but OP preferred to ignore the same on one pretext or other. The complainant wanted OP to refund cost of Handycem i.e. Rs.29,500/- and compensation.

 

2. OP-1 filed written statement.  It pleaded that according to terms of warranty, if any defect is found due to improper material or workmanship, Soni Service Centres/Authorised Service Centres would repair the product free of charge subject to terms and conditions. However, warranty shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening, ingress of water, fire or Acts of God, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control and/or any damage caused due to tempering of the product by any unauthorised agency.

 

3. After going through the material on record and hearing both the parties. Ld. District Forum gave the finding that purchase of Handycem by respondent from appellant is not in dispute. The dispute is regarding excess estimate given by OP-2 to the complainant for repairing the Handycem. On 01.05.2013, OP-2 gave an estimate of Rs.1826/- and charged Rs.200/- as inspection charges.  Subsequently, OP-2 gave an estimate of Rs.6597/- and Handicem was damaged by OP-2 reason being that in service job-sheet issued by OP-2 on 01.05.2013, it recorded physical condition as “physically OK” The stand of OP was that after repairing the defects during first inspection, they came to know about some other defects in the Handycem and gave an estimate of Rs.6597/- to complainant which he did not approve, so Handycem could not be repaired.  Further according to OP, Handycem was physically damaged and same was recorded in the job-sheet as scratchy and dusty. The District Forum found that failure of OPs to repair the Handycem amounts to deficiency in service and directed the OPs to refund the cost of the Handicem amounting to Rs.29,500/-, pay Rs.2500/- cost  and interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realisation of full amount by complainant.

 

4. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The counsel for appellant pointed that complainant/respondent has cleverly omitted to mention the date of purchase of Handycem.  However, the copy of retail invoice filed by complainant himself before the District Forum which is at page 13 of the file of District Forum shows that Handycem was purchased on 30.11.2009.  The warranty has expired.  The complainant has used the Handycem for 3 and ½ years on the date of handing over the same for repair on 01.05.2013. He further submitted that all the defects cannot be detected in the first inspection.  It is only after opening camera and repairing the defects visible on first sight that the inner defect can be detected. When camera was opened and  PWB FP flexible was replaced, it was found that TP block assembly needed to be replaced for which revised estimate was given.  Since the complainant did not approve the revised estimate, repairs could not be done. The appellant/OP could not be expected to carryout the repairs without receiving the charges for the same. Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of OP. 

 

5. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that there was no damage at the time of initial handing over for repairs. The damage, if any, was caused by OP. The OP has no justification for retaining camera.

 

6. In rebuttal, the appellant stated that it was ready to handover the camera, it was the complainant who did not collect the same. It was ready to return the same even now.

 

7. The complainant refused to take back the camera on the ground that during this period of more than two years the camera must have become junked.

 

8. After considering the rival submissions, we find that Handycem is an electronic device, the average life of the camera must be around five years out of which the respondent has already used the same for 3 and ½ years.  There was no justification for the District Forum to direct to refund of entire price of the Handycem.  The depreciated value of the camera must be around 50%.  Viewed in that on light, the appellant is liable to refund Rs.14,750/-.  In addition, the OP is liable to pay cost of Rs.2500/- as determined by the District Forum. That is all. Directions for interest on the amount are not called for as it was not a case of liquidated damages.

 

9. The respondent has filed reply to the appeal running into 30 typed pages. He has referred to various judgements of different courts.  The reply has been perused and judgements speak of general principle of law which are not applicable to the case in hand.

 

10. The respondent has prayed for enhancing amount of Rs.32,000/- awarded by District Forum to Rs.2,29,500/-.  Besides, same being highly exaggerated it needs to be mentioned that respondent has not filed any counter appeal and so he is not entitled for any enhancement.

 

11. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is partly allowed and order of District Forum is modified to the effect that appellant is liable to refund Rs.14,750/- alongwith interest @6% p.a. from date of complaint till realisation and Rs.2500/- as cost of litigation.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per law. One copy be sent to District Forum also.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

jk