Order dictated by:
Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant has purchased One Laptop SVF15N12SN/SC-Model Code 0000050 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Bill/ Cash Memo No.R1-315 dated 18.04.2014 for a sum of Rs.68,989/- and besides this the Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.1001/- on account of Laptop Rain Cover Bag, Tel MDR XB910A/SC and VAIO+2YRS Extended (999) total amounting to Rs.69,990/-, copy of cash memo is enclosed herewith. Opposite Party No. 2 is the dealer of Sony India, whereas Opposite Party No.4 is the manufacturer of the said product, whereas Opposite Party No.3 is the authorized service centre of Sony India-Opposite Party No.4; that at the time of sale of the said product, Opposite Party No. 1 gave one year warranty besides two years extended warranty and charged Rs.999/- for said extended warranty and in this way, said product remained under warranty till 18.4.2017; that since the date of the purchase of the said product, it was not functioning properly, as it was giving some problems like hardware failure, heating, and screen colour problem etc. In this regard, in the month of May, 2014 and thereafter on regular interval, the complainant contacted and visited Opposite Party No. 2-Rohit Electronics who is dealer of Sony India and by making some minor repairs, the Opposite Party No. 2 always told that the main service centre of Sony India is situated at Ludhiana i.e. Opposite Party No.3. During that period, Opposite Party No. 2 also suggested the complainant that there seems some manufacturing defect in the product and the complainant should have contacted the company or its Ludhiana Service Centre; that when the complainant got no proper response from Opposite Party No. 2 regarding the functioning of the product in question, then on the advice of Opposite Party No. 2, in the month of July, 2017 the complainant visited Opposite Party No.3 and on 31.07.2017 the complainant handed over the product to Opposite Party No.3 through her son Sh.Karminder Singh who was at present residing at 58, Green Field, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. After checking, Opposite Party No.3 told that the screen/LCD of the product requires to be changed and gave estimate of about Rs.23,043/-. At that time, the representative of the complainant objected and told that the product is giving problem since the date of its purchase including the screen problem, but Opposite Party No.3 did not listen and told that if the complainant wants to get its defects removed, he has to deposit the said amount. So, under these compelling circumstances, the complainant deposited Rs.11,500/- i.e. 50% of the amount. Thereafter, on 9.8.2017 Opposite Party No.3 delivered the laptop to the complainant on charging the remaining amount of Rs.11,500/- by allegedly replacing the screen of the product and issued invoice dated 9.8.2017 of Rs.23,043/-, copy of which is annexed. But however, at the same time, Er.Parminder Singh of Opposite Party No.3 told the representative of the complainant secretly that at the time of change of LCD/ Screen, its Palm Rest has been damaged and advised to replace the said part and gave estimate of Rs.14,000/-. On 14.8.2014 the complainant again visited Opposite Party No.3 and deposited 50% of the total amount of part i.e.Palm Rest vide receipt dated 14.8.2017, copy of which is enclosed herewith. After keeping the Laptop with them, Er.Parminder Singh of Opposite Party No.3 made call 11.10.2017 and told that the part i.e. Palm Rest is not available in India due to the reason that the company has stopped to make the product i.e. laptop in question and hence the parts are not available with them. But this fact is totally wrong because the company is still selling the said model of product and the representative of the company telephonically made offer that if the complainant wants to purchase new Laptop, the company will give 20% concession in the price of new product. It is pertinent to mention over here that since then the Laptop in question is lying with Opposite Party No.3; that it has also come to know from the Engineers of Sony India that from the date of sale of the product, the company remains kept the parts of that product for a minimum period of 5 years and moreover, it is the duty of the company to make available the requisite parts of the product. It is also trite to mention over here that the said product is launched in India in the year 2013 and its parts should persist upto 2018. In this way, till date, the complainant has spent more than Rs.1 lac including its repair charges, but all in vain. The complainant is suffering in the hands of the Opposite Parties who are hand in gloves with each other; that since the date of purchase of the product in question, the complainant is wandering here and there, and visiting the Opposite Parties, but he got no response and hence, the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment also; that the complainant time and again visited Opposite Party No.3, but they flatly refused to listen the request of the complainant and now told that the product in question is having manufacturing defect and it can not be repaired. Hence, there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite parties; that the opposite parties are duty bound to remove the defect in the Laptop in question as they have already charged the hefty amount from the complainant on account of repair charges and replacement of parts; that due to the non functioning of the laptop in question, the studying son of the complainant is suffering badly; that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in not providing the best services to the complainant without any reason is an act of deficiency in services, mal practices, Unfair Trade Practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. Though, such loss can not be compensated in the shape of money, but still the complainant claims a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages for causing her mental tension and harassment. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To replace the product in question of same make and model or in alternative to refund the price of the laptop i.e. Rs.69,990/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till its realization.
- To refund the price of screen/ LCD amounting to Rs.23,043/- and Rs.7,000/- i.e. half payment of Palm Rest paid to Opposite Party No.3 against receipts.
- and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing her mental tension and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation and
- Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 ,2 and hence they were proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that as per the record of the company, the complainant purchased one Sony VIAO SVF 15N12SNS having serial No.0000050 on 18.4.2014 from Opposite Party No.1 after a detailed demonstration of the features and functions alongwith the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the aforesaid LAPTOP and said laptop was purchased with two years extended warranty. It is further averred that Opposite Party No.4 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and can not be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. After enjoying the said laptop for almost 3 years and 3 months, the complainant for the very first approached the service centre on 31.7.2017 with the laptop in a physically damaged condition. The service centre without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the laptop. Upon inspection, it was observed that the Display+ Bottom Base of the said laptop was damaged. It is submitted that the complainant approached the service centre at a stage when the warranty period of the said laptop was already expired. In fact, the laptop was brought to the service centre in a physically damaged condition. Due to the above said reasons, the warranty stands void as per warranty policy. Therefore, the service centre shared an estimated cost of the repairing the said laptop. After the estimated cost was approved and paid by the complainant, the service centre replaced the led screen of the said laptop and did necessary repair action and delivered the laptop in a proper working condition and upto complainant’s satisfaction. It is submitted that no inconvenience was caused to the complainant while dealing the issue pertaining to the said laptop. It is submitted that thereafter, the complainant again approached the service centre on 14.8.2017 raising an issue with the Palmrest of the said laptop. The complainant has brought the Palmrest in damaged condition. Therefore, the service centre shared an estimated cost of Rs.14,164/- of the repairs. The service centre also informed the complainant that the services/ replacement of part was subject to it’s availability. The service centre further informed the complainant that in case if the part is not available then that the complainant can opt for another model at discount of 20% on MRP. It is submitted that the considering the above noted options given by the service centre, the complainant paid the estimated cost of Rs.14,164/- towards the replacement of Palmrest. The complainant was duly informed by the service centre that in case if the part is not available, then the said amount will be returned and the complainant can go for a new laptop @ 20% discount, but the complainant instead of waiting and opting for the laptop at a discounted price, preferred to file this present complaint on the pretext of baseless allegations. It is submitted that the complainant as matter of strategy has not even collecting the amount of Rs.14,164/- paid towards the repair action of the said laptop. Over and above the complainant has not accepted the offer given by the opposite parties to replace the said laptop at a discount of 20% on MRP. The complainant rather preferred to file this present complaint in order to derive benefits from the Opposite Parties. It is relevant to mention here that the Complainant approached the Service Centre for the very first time after the expiry of the warranty period i.e. after 3 years and 3 months from the date of purchase and that too at stage when even the extended warranty was also expired. Moreover, the Complainant approached with the laptop in a physically damaged condition. In such a scenario, it is very much clear that the laptop in question was free from any sort of defect. During the warranty period of one year and even during the extended warranty period of two years, nothing has happened to the laptop, hence it is wrong to alleged that the laptop in question was having some inherent defect. The Complainant is neither accepting the amount of Rs.14,165/- paid towards the repair action of palmrest and nor ready to accept the offer of buying a new laptop @ 20% discount no MRP. The Complainant has also not furnished any document which establishes the fact that the laptop in question was having some manufacturing defect. In the absence of any strong proof, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the opposite parties No.3 and 4 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In her bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed her evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 tendered into evidence the copies of documents Ex.OP3,4/1 and Ex.OP3,4/2 and thereafter, the remaining evidence of Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 has been closed by order of this Forum.
6. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties have mainly argued the case as per the averments as mentioned in its written version and argued that the written version filed by the opposite parties No.3 and 4 may be read as part and parcel of the written version of the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Complainant has repelled the contention and written version of the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 on the same line as mentioned in the complaint and contended that complainant has purchased One Laptop SVF15N12SN/SC-Model Code 0000050 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Bill/ Cash Memo No.R1-315 dated 18.04.2014 for a sum of Rs.68,989/-, and besides this the Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.1001/- on account of Laptop Rain Cover Bag, Tel MDR XB910A/SC and VAIO+2YRS Extended (999) total amounting to Rs.69,990/-, copy of bill accounts for Ex.C2 on file. It is not the denial of the case that Opposite Party No. 2 is the dealer of Sony India, whereas Opposite Party No.4 is the manufacturer of the said product, whereas Opposite Party No.3 is the authorized service centre of Sony India-Opposite Party No.4. It is also not disputed that at the time of sale of the said product, Opposite Party No. 1 gave one year warranty besides two years extended warranty and charged Rs.999/- for said extended warranty, copy of said receipt accounts for Ex.C5 and in this way, said product remained under warranty till 18.4.2017. The case of the complainant is that since the date of the purchase of the said product, it was not functioning properly, as it was giving some problems like hardware failure, heating, and screen colour problem etc. In this regard, in the month of May, 2014 and thereafter on regular interval, the complainant contacted and visited Opposite Party No. 2-Rohit Electronics i.e. dealer of Sony India and by making some minor repairs, the Opposite Party No. 2 always told that the main service centre of Sony India is situated at Ludhiana i.e. Opposite Party No.3. During that period, Opposite Party No. 2 also suggested the complainant that there seems some manufacturing defect in the product and the complainant should have contacted the company or its Ludhiana Service Centre. It is further contended that when the complainant got no proper response from Opposite Party No. 2 regarding the functioning of the product in question, then on the advice of Opposite Party No. 2, in the month of July, 2017 the complainant visited Opposite Party No.3 and on 31.07.2017 the complainant handed over the product to Opposite Party No.3 through her son Sh.Karminder Singh who was at present residing at 58, Green Field, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. After checking, Opposite Party No.3 told that the screen/LCD of the product requires to be changed and gave estimate of about Rs.23,043/-. At that time, the representative of the complainant objected and told that the product is giving problem since the date of its purchase including the screen problem, but Opposite Party No.3 did not listen and told that if the complainant wants to get its defects removed, he has to deposit the said amount. So, under these compelling circumstances, the complainant deposited Rs.11,500/- i.e. 50% of the amount. Thereafter, on 9.8.2017 Opposite Party No.3 delivered the laptop to the complainant on charging the remaining amount of Rs.11,500/- by allegedly replacing the screen of the product and issued invoice dated 9.8.2017 of Rs.23,043/-, copy of receipt accounts for Ex.C6. It is further contended that at the same time, Er.Parminder Singh of Opposite Party No.3 told the representative of the complainant secretly that at the time of change of LCD/ Screen, its Palm Rest has been damaged and advised to replace the said part and gave estimate of Rs.14,000/-. On 14.8.2014 the complainant again visited Opposite Party No.3 and deposited 50% of the total amount of part i.e.Palm Rest vide receipt dated 14.8.2017, copy of which is Ex.C8 on the record. After keeping the Laptop with them, Er.Parminder Singh of Opposite Party No.3 made call 11.10.2017 and told that the part i.e. Palm Rest is not available in India due to the reason that the company has stopped to make the product i.e. laptop in question and hence the parts are not available with them. But this fact is totally wrong because the company is still selling the said model of product and the representative of the company telephonically made offer that if the complainant wants to purchase new Laptop, the company will give 20% concession in the price of new product. But since then the Laptop in question is lying with Opposite Party No.3. Further contention is that it has also come to know from the Engineers of Sony India that from the date of sale of the product, the company remains kept the parts of that product for a minimum period of 5 years and moreover, it is the duty of the company to make available the requisite parts of the product. It is also trite to mention over here that the said product is launched in India in the year 2013 and its parts should persist upto 2018. In this way, till date, the complainant has spent more than Rs.1 lac including its repair charges, but all in vain. The complainant is suffering in the hands of the Opposite Parties who are hand in gloves with each other; that since the date of purchase of the product in question, the complainant is wandering here and there, and visiting the Opposite Parties, but he got no response and hence, the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment also; that the complainant time and again visited Opposite Party No.3, but they flatly refused to listen the request of the complainant and now told that the product in question is having manufacturing defect and it can not be repaired. Hence, there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite parties; that the opposite parties are duty bound to remove the defect in the Laptop in question as they have already charged the hefty amount from the complainant on account of repair charges and replacement of parts; that due to the non functioning of the laptop in question, the studying son of the complainant is suffering badly; that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in not providing the best services to the complainant without any reason is an act of deficiency in services, mal practices, Unfair Trade Practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. The aforesaid contention has duly been corroborated by the Complainant through her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 and the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties is writ large.
8. It is not the denial of the case that when the complainant got no proper response from Opposite Party No. 2 regarding the non functioning of the product in question, then at last on the advice of Opposite Party No. 2, in the month of July, 2017 the complainant visited Opposite Party No.3 and on 31.07.2017 the complainant handed over the product to Opposite Party No.3 and after checking, Opposite Party No.3 told that the screen/LCD of the product requires to be changed and gave estimate of about Rs.23,043/-. At that time, the representative of the complainant objected and told that the product is giving problem since the date of its purchase including the screen problem, but Opposite Party No.3 did not listen and told that if the complainant wants to get its defects removed, he has to deposit the said amount. So, under these compelling circumstances, the complainant deposited Rs.11,500/- i.e. 50% of the amount. Thereafter, on 9.8.2017 Opposite Party No.3 delivered the laptop to the complainant on charging the remaining amount of Rs.11,500/- by allegedly replacing the screen of the product and issued invoice dated 9.8.2017 of Rs.23,043/-, copy of receipt accounts for Ex.C6. It is further contended that at the same time, Er.Parminder Singh of Opposite Party No.3 told the representative of the complainant secretly that at the time of change of LCD/ Screen, its Palm Rest has been damaged and advised to replace the said part and gave estimate of Rs.14,000/-. On 14.8.2014 the complainant again visited Opposite Party No.3 and deposited 50% of the total amount of part i.e.Palm Rest vide receipt dated 14.8.2017, copy of which is Ex.C8 on the record. After keeping the Laptop with them, Er.Parminder Singh of Opposite Party No.3 made call 11.10.2017 and told that the part i.e. Palm Rest is not available in India due to the reason that the company has stopped to make the product i.e. laptop in question and hence the parts are not available with them. In this way, as per the advice of the Engineer of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant deposited full amount of Rs.23,043/- and thereafter 50% of the spare parts amount for the repair the laptop in question, but the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the defect of the laptop in question by replacing the spare parts i.e. palm rest of the laptop in question despite deposit of requisite amount of Rs.23,043/-+ and Rs.7000/- to Opposite Parties whereas, the laptop in question is lying with Opposite Party No.3 since the date of deposit of the amount of spare parts and the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 are not bothering to do the needful which shows the highhandedness and carelessness on the part of the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4. However, as per the Warranty Info of Sony Ex.C9 on file, it is specifically mentioned in para No.9 that if in case the spare part(s) are not available and have to be arranged/ sourced afresh, a tentative date for repair service will be indicated and the customer will be required to deposit 100% advance, prior to the sourcing of the spare part(s), but however, the Complainant has already deposited the 100% amount of spare part(s) i.e. Rs.23,043/- and Rs.7000/- as per the requirement of the Opposite Parties, but the Complainant got no response and in this way, the son of the Complainant is suffering in his study of higher class due to non functioning of the laptop in question despite of spending huge amount of about Rs.1 lac, due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4. However, on the other hand, though the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 have denied the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Complainant, but they have failed to corroborate this denial version through any affidavit on record because the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 have failed to produce and prove on record any affidavit of their any of the engineer that no conversation was ever made by them with the representative of the Complainant. Not only this, in their defence, Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 also remained mum in this regard, for the reasons best known to them. Never-the-less, to support the aforesaid averments and documents, Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 have not tendered any supportive affidavit of their officer and in the absence of any duly sworn affidavit of some responsible officer of Opposite Parties no.3 and 4, the averments and documents so produced by Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 can not be admitted as gospel truth. In this way, the evidence produced by the complainant alongwith duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1 is to be admitted as true in the absence of any rebuttal in the shape of affidavit of Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 who have failed to produce the same to support its defence. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab in case Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Miss Veenu Babbar and another 2000(1) CLT 619 that where no supporting affidavit is filed by the tenderer of the documents, these documents could not be treated as substantive material to base any decision. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in case Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Kunari Devi IV(2008) CPJ 89 (NC) that where no affidavit has been produced in support of allegation, the documents so produced not to be treated as evidence of the tenderer of those documents.
9. Moreover, an advocate appearing on behalf of the parties cannot assume and put himself in the witness box on behalf of parties for filing an affidavit in evidence or bringing on record an important piece of evidence. The documents have been tendered in evidence without any supporting affidavit of any officer of the Opposite Party and thus the documents brought on the record, as referred to herein above by ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 cannot be read in evidence per se as it has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission in “Malay Kumar Ganguly versus Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others, 2009 (V) RCR Kumar Ganguly versus Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others, 2009 (V) RCR Criminal page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting Order 13 Rule 4 and 7 documents marked as Exhibited-whether such document is admissible, pleased to held that:
“ordinarily if a party to an action does not object to a document being taken on record and the same is marked as an exhibit, he is estopped and precluded from questioning the admissibility therefore at later stage. It is, however, trite that a document becomes inadmissible in evidence unless author thereof is examined; the contents thereof cannot be held to have been proved unless he is examined and subjected to cross examination in a court of law.”
10. Further more, it is settled principle that the manufacturing company is bound to keep the spare parts of any product till 5 years from the date of sale of the said product, but at this stage, the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 can not take any plea that the spare parts of the product in question are not available with them, when more-so, they have already charged the hefty amount of Rs.23,043/- and Rs.7000/- from the Complainant being the price of the new spare parts of the product. However, being a good citizen the Complainant has paid the amount of Rs.23,043/- and Rs.7000/- to the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 being the price of the spare parts which is not denied by Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 because the product in question was beyond the period of warranty, but on the other hand, the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 are lingering on the matter on the one pretext or the other. And in this way, the Complainant is suffering badly due to the loss of her son in her study due to the defect of laptop in question and such loss can not be compensated later on in the shape of money, but however, the Complainant has claimed the compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- in this regard besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3000/- and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2500/-. However, Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 has time and again submitted in its written version that the Complainant has deposited Rs.14,164/- towards the replacement of palmrest, but this fact is not correct, whereas the Complainant has paid 50% i.e. Rs.7000/- only, which proves the bonafide of the Complainant, and this Forum appreciate this good spirit/ intention of the Complainant.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 are directed to replace the laptop in question with new one of same make and model within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 shall refund the amount of price of laptop i.e. Rs.69,990/- alongwith interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of passing the order until full and final payment. Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 shall also refund the amount of Rs.23,043/- and Rs.7000/- paid to Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 against receipts. Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the Complainant besides Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses. However, complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties no.3 and 4 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum under section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
