Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/20/2019

C.P.Karthick, S/o.Perumal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Croma Store Tarapuar Tower - Opp.Party(s)

C.P.Karthick, S/o.Perumal

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on :10.12.2018

                                                                    Date of disposal            :26.08.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                     : PRESIDENT

                                  TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                          : MEMBER-I

                                  THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.20/2019

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 26^th  DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

C.P.Karthick

S/o.C.Perumal,

No.71/j Medavakkam 2^nd street,

Keelpauk,

Chennai 600 010.                                                         …..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

 

1.       Croma Store

Tarapore tower ground floor

Annasalai,

Sales center,

Tamilnadu,

Chennai-600 002.

 

2.       Sony service center,

          Vimas intek, Y block,

          1^st street, Annanagar,

          Tamilnadu,

          Chennai-600 040                                                     …. Opposite Parties

 

Counsel for Complainant                   : Party in Person

 

Counsel for 1^st  opposite party                : M/s.N.Maheswaraiah

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                : Ex-parte

 

ORDER

 

THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., : PRESIDENT

         

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to replace the Bluetooth headset(sbh 70) and to pay a sum of  Rs.26096.30/-  for causing mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant has purchased Sony Bluetooth Headset(sbh70) on 11.08.2016 from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.5219.30,  since the headset was not working and in order to effect repair the complainant has given the headset to the 2^nd opposite party who is authorized service center of sony and the headset is having warranty period of one year from the date of purchase and further before filing this complaint the complainant approached the state Consumer Helpline Consumer Protection Government of Tamilnadu and by letter dated 22.05.2017 after mediating with the 2^nd opposite party they informed the complainant that the Bluetooth wire is dead and not covered under warranty and therefore the complainant approached this commission since the 2^nd opposite party refused to remove the defects inspite of warranty and  Hence this complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and prayed to replace the Bluetooth headset and compensation for mental agony of Rs.26096.50 and Rs.3000/- towards cost of the complaint.

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF 1^st OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party 1 in their written version states that the complaint is not maintainable in law and in facts.  The opposite party 1 cannot be in any manner held responsible for any defects in the manufacturing since manufacturing and related defects that may occur is the direct responsibility of the manufacturer thereof i.e. the opposite party no.1 since the opposite party 2 is not involved in activities relating to manufacturing including the activities of assembling and packaging.  The manufacture of  ‘defective’ goods was liable to make the good and loss of the consumer/complainant for all the loss or injury suffered as a result of negligence in manufacturing and not the dealer. It is evident that the role of the opposite party no.1 is limited to sale and nothing further rand for all after sale service, the opposite party no.1 refers all the complaints, if any, to the manufacturers and follows up with them and tries to resolve the same at the earliest possible date. The 1^st opposite party cannot be in any manner liable or held responsible for any of the alleged hardships that the complainant might have undergone as alleged.  The 1^st opposite party cannot be held liable for negligence or delay in providing any after sales service by opposite party 2 since the role of opposite party 1 is restricted to co-ordination with opposite party 2. Hence the complainant is not in any manner liable to claim any relief against the 1^st opposite party.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any negligent and deficiency in service on the part opposite parties 1 and 2 as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit and also documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1 to B3 were marked on his side.  The 2^nd opposite party were remained set exparte.

4. POINT NO :1

          The complainant has purchased Sony Bluetooth Headset(sbh70) on 11.08.2016 from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.5219.30 ,  since the headset was not working and in order to effect repair the complainant has given the headset to the 2^nd opposite party who is authorized service center of sony and the headset is having warranty period of one year from the date of purchase and further before filing this complaint the complainant approached the state Consumer Helpline Consumer Protection Government of Tamilnadu and by letter dated 22.05.2017 after mediating with the 2^nd opposite party they informed the complainant that the Bluetooth wire is dead and not covered under warranty and therefore the complainant approached this commission since the 2^nd opposite party refused to remove the defects inspite of warranty and  Hence this complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and prayed to replace the Bluetooth headset and compensation.

          5. The 2^nd opposite party remained exparte.  The 1^st opposite party in the version contended that they are the subsidiary of tata sons and it functions through established retail stores in different part of the country and the role of the 1^st opposite party as a retail seller is only confine to sale alone and nothing further the 1^st opposite party is not responsible for the defect in the product sole and any defect in the product is answerable only by the manufacturer who is not added as a party to the complaint.  The further contended the 2^nd opposite party is only an authorized service center and 1^st opposite party cannot held liable for negligence or delay in after sales service by the 2^nd opposite party and it is unnecessary party to the complaint.

          6. The complainant has filed Ex.A1 which is duplicate invoice wherein it is found that Sony Bluetooth Headset(sbh70) was purchased by one Sathiskumar on 11.08.2016 from 1^st opposite party for Rs.5219.30 and it is found from Ex.A2 and A3 that on 12.04.2017 the complainant herein has given the above said headset to the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party refused to repair the same by stating that wire damaged in one side warranty service not possible as per warranty policy it is found in this document in Clause 7 of the terms and conditions that the repair service may be declined if the product is more than five years old or if the product is damaged extensively or if the failure is caused due to lightning, water or fire etc., It is found from Ex.A4 on 13.04.2017 the complainant has approached the State Consumer Helpline Government of Tamilnadu, which has sent a reply which is marked as Ex.A5 to A7 stating that the Bluetooth wire is dead and the said problem does not cover in the warranty, it if found from Ex.A8  the present complainant has paid Rs.1 towards the purchase of the product and by virtue of this Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 letter by which the complainant herein purchased the Bluetooth from Sathishkumar for Rs.5000/- on 15.08.2016 and thereby the complainant allege that he became a consumer of the product concern. The opposite party 1 also filed the retail invoice issued by the 2^nd opposite party on 12.04.2017 which is marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 which is tax invoice issued by croma on 23.06.2016 to sathishkumar, it is found from Ex.B3 that the complainant herein has paid Rs.1 /- towards purchase of headset.  Though by virtue of payment of Rs.1/- towards the purchase of headset the complainant has became a consumer from the documents filed by the complainant it is found that the complainant has not stated when he has purchased the headset from his friend Sathishkumar in the complaint. Further though the said repair to the headset was within the warranty period the 2^nd opposite party has refused the service since the Bluetooth wire was damaged and as per the one of the terms and conditions if there was damaged to the product the service of product may be declined by the service center and hence it was rightly denied by the 2^nd opposite party which cannot be treated as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Even under Ex.A5 to A7 it is found that the 2^nd opposite party refused to do service free of cost since the Bluetooth wire was dead and not covered under warranty.  It is further found in Ex.A2 and A3 the complaint related to audio problem.  But the complainant has not stated in the complaint the nature of defect at any event the 1^st opposite party is only a retail seller and the 2^nd opposite party is an authorized service center alone, if the complainant alleges any defect in the product he ought to have added the manufacturer of the product as a party in the complaint which was not done by him,  hence the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party also.  The complainant failed to prove the hardship and loss caused to him due to the defect in the headset, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as alleged in the complaint. Point no.1 is answered accordingly. 

7. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled to the relief of compensation for mental agony as claimed in the complaint.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 26^th day of August 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER – II                         PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	11.08.2016	Duplicate invoice
Ex.A2	12.04.2017	Retail invoice with terms and conditions.
Ex.A3	12.04.2017	Retail invoice with terms and conditions.
Ex.A4	13.04.2018	Complainant letter to State Consumer Helpline.
Ex.A5	22.05.2017	State Consumer Helpline letter to Complainant .
Ex.A6	22.05.2017	State Consumer Helpline letter to Complainant .
Ex.A7	22.05.2017	State Consumer Helpline letter to Complainant .
Ex.A8	23.06.2016	HDFC bank receipt.
Ex.A9	15.08.2016	K.Sathish kumar letter to complainant.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1	11.04.2017	Sony service center challan
Ex.B2	23.06.2016	Bill by the opposite party.
Ex.B3		Exchange policy

 

 

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER – II                         PRESIDENT