Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/532

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

K A SASI - Opp.Party(s)

J S SABU

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 532/13

JUDGMENT DTD: 28/10/15

(Against the order in CC No.514/12 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam, dtd:07/12/12)

PRESENT

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS      :  MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          Sony 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.

 

          (By Adv. Smt. Fathima. S)

 

                                                                             Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. K.A. Sasi,

          Kanichatu House,

          Iringole P.O.,

          Perumbavoor – 683546.

 

2. The Manager,

          Bismi Appliances,

          Near International Stadium,

          Kaloor, Kochi – 17

 

          (By Adv. Sri. Tom Joseph for R1)

 

JUDGMENT

         

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS:  MEMBER

 

          Being aggrieved by the order passed on 07.12.2012 by Learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in consumer complaint no.514/2012 filed on 24/08/12, the 1^st respondent (appellant in this appeal) in the Learned Forum below preferred this appeal against the order.

          2.      The 1^st respondent bought a Sony Cybershot Dsc W310 digital for Rs.7,500/- from BISMI appliances (the 2^nd respondent) an authorized dealer of appellant on 21^st August 2010.  During course of time the camera developed complaints and as per the direction of the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent approached Madonna Electricals an authorized service centre of the appellant and gave the camera for repair on 22/09/2011.  Later on 13/06/2012 the 1^st respondent approached with the same complaint and got repaired by the same service centre.  Still the camera was not functioning properly and all the photos taken using the alleged camera were going of bad quality.  Hence the 1^st respondent approached the Learned Forum below for deficiency of service and relief.  The appellant refuted stating they are only liable to repair the camera of the 1^st respondent in case it proved to be defective due to improper material or workmanship.  The appellant argued that the camera does not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defect and is therefore not liable to be replaced.  In accordance with the terms of warranty the appellant has already repaired the camera of the 1^st respondent and the same has been returned to the 1^st respondent.  Therefore there is no deficiency of services on the part of the appellant.  The appellant stated they cannot be held liable for improper handling of the camera by the 1^st respondent and the same is clear from clause 8 of the warranty terms of the camera and also raised the concern that the 1^st respondent has failed to annex any report of an independent expert that the camera was defective.  Hence dismissing the complaint.

          3.      On hearing both sides and referring exhibits the Learned Forum below concluded that the recurring defects of the camera in question before and after the warranty period show that the product suffers from manufacturing defect.  Therefore the appellant, the manufacturer is liable to replace the disputed camera with a new one of the same price and quality.  Hence the Learned Forum below allowed the complaint in part and directed the appellant to replace the disputed camera with a new one of the same price and quality according to the choice of the complainant with fresh warranty.  In that event the complainant shall hand over the disputed camera to the 1^st opposite party simultaneously.  The difference in price if any shall be met by the complainant.

          4.      Hence the 1^st respondent preferred this appeal.  Heard both the sides and perused the documents on file.

          Reproducing the clause specified as seen in Exbt.A1 (india Service Warranty, Terms and Conditions) page 2, “Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called “Sony”) warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects during the period indicated on page 1, in the section “Valid Up to”.  This non-transferable warranty is only for you, the first end user.  If during this period of warranty the product proves to be defective due to improper material or workmanship, Sony service centres/Authorised Service Centres will repair the product free of charge subject to the terms and conditions mentioned below”.  Page 1 of the said exhibit A1 Warranty Card states the said camera model is valid up to 21^st October, 2013 (3 Year Warranty), which was issued to the 1^st respondent along with retial invoice on purchase of the camera by the 1^st respondent from 2^nd respondent on 21^st August, 2010.  The appellant had specified in the statement of facts that the said warranty clause specifies as 1 year under point 5(iii) which is misleading from actual facts.

          5.      The general presumption for definition of “warranty” is that a warranty is a guarantee of repair and replacement of an item/product or its parts if the product or service does not meet the reasonable expectations of a buyer or in case any defect is found in it during the period of the warranty.  It is also noted in The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 Section 12 – Condition and warranty, Sub clause (3) states “A warranty is a stipulation collateral to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated.”  On close observation it can be construed as there is onus of duty on seller to repair or to replace such parts defective in the goods sold to a customer but however there is no responsibility on seller to replace the product itself.  On 22/09/2011, 1^st respondent had given the camera for repair to the appellant authorised service agent and from the service sheet it is seen that the customer complaint was “Display not proper” and comment by the service agent was “set found ok”, the same camera was returned to the 1^st respondent.  Later on 13/06/2012, the 1^st respondent approached the same authorised service agent of the appellant with similar complaint “white screen on display” and comment by the service agent was  “parts replaced”, also specified condition of the set as “scratches on body cover”.  On both the occasion the 1strespondent approached with the complaint of camera display.  The second time appellant had replaced the parts free of cost and this occurred within the said warranty period, the appellant had complied with the general presumption under warranty.

          6.      It could be concluded that just because scratches were found on the camera the 1^st respondent operated the camera badly or was mishandled.  When the 1^st respondent approached the service centre with the same complaint with display earlier on 22/09/2011 and on the job card nothing has been specified about the condition of the set.

          7.      However on considering the above facts the 1^st respondent seems a victim of defective camera and he has approached twice with same complaint to the appellant and in spite of repairing the camera still the camera is defect free.  The concern of the 1^st respondent was that even after receiving the camera from the authorized service agents of the appellant after repair the alleged camera while taking pictures have become of bad quality.  This proves the service conducted by the appellants authorized agents have not fulfilled the conditions as stipulated under the terms and conditions of warranty issued by the appellant.  The alleged camera could not be rectified by the appellants during the promised warranty period.  There seems no other option resting on 1^st respondent other than approaching the Learned Forum for this deficiency of service.  The warranty terms and conditions do not provide any other specific relief for their customer on finding that the appellant product could not be rectified or repaired.  The product even though has been used by the 1^st respondent for more than a year, it is the warranty given for 3 years which shows the product will be hassle free from any problems during the period of warranty.  The alleged camera is supposed to be a simple “point and shoot” version of cameras whereby the 1^st respondent or any customer who uses the camera do not require much intellect or operational knowledge of the same reason the 1^st respondent do seem to be a genuine customer who have a defective product.  The fact that 1^st respondent has not provided other expert opinion is just and fair, as on all the occasion the 1^st respondent approached appellant’s authorised service agents for repairing the camera and if the alleged camera was checked by any other unauthorized agent or person, the very basic right for 1^st respondent to contest the defective camera would had been lost in accordance to the warranty terms and conditions.  The onus of proof to prove the camera was defective free lies on the appellant and the appellant has not taken any steps to prove otherwise.  The primary concern here is that the alleged camera has been provided for rectification or repairing twice by the 1^st respondent and on both the occasion the alleged camera defects or problems has not been cured.  Hence we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Learned Forum below based on the above findings.

          Hence the appeal is dismissed.

                            

SANTHAMMA THOMAS:  MEMBER

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR:  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

APPEAL NO. 532/13

JUDGMENT DTD: 28/10/15

 

 

nb