Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/786

SONY INDIA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

K SAIDALAVI - Opp.Party(s)

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 786/15

JUDGMENT DATED : 21.12.2018

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.NO.295/2013

on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT.R                       : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

1. 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

Through its Authorised Signator Ms.Meena Bose)

 

2. The Manager, Zygonet Systems, Trident Arcade, Kalpetta – 673 121

 

3. The Manager, Madona Systems and Service, Sheratone Complex, Calicut – 673002

 

(By Adv.Fathima.S)

 

565.  

 

 

RESPONDENT

K.Saidalavi, Puthanpeedikakkal House, Thazhe Arapetta, Meppadi.P.O, Wayanad – 673 577

 

          (By Adv.Sri.Sandeep T George – amicuscurIae)

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                             :JUDICIAL MEMBER

The opposite parties in CC.No.295/2013 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad, Kalpetta, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which the second opposite party was directed to take the custody of the disputed laptop from the forum and repair and rectify all the defects in the laptop within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and to pay Rs 15,000/- as compensation and the first opposite party was directed to Rs 5000/- as cost.

 

2.      The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. On 28.08.2012 the complainant purchased SoniVio laptop from the first opposite party. After three days’ laptop showed some complaints complainant informed the matter to the first opposite party and as per their advice the complainant entrusted the laptop to the second opposite party service center at Calicut and the defect was cured. But on the very next week itself the laptop showed some complaint. As per the direction of the first opposite party, it was repaired with the help of the second opposite party. After three months the laptop was not functioning and as advised by the first opposite party the complainant entrusted the laptop to the second opposite party service center. After five days he got back the repaired laptop. Subsequently the complainant noticed a gap in between the bottom side of the body of the laptop and it was detached from one corner. Again the complainant contacted the opposite parties and demanded for replacement. On 21.09.2013 the first opposite party extended the warranty by receiving Rs 2500/- from the complainant. Now laptop has warranty up to 27.08.2015. On 09.12.2013 the laptop became defective and the body parts showed gap and detached. When the complainant approached the second opposite party they demanded Rs 5000/- as repaired charges. The complainant purchased the laptop for his son who is a B.tech computer engineering student. The problems of the laptop caused much inconvenience to the studies of his son. The act of the opposite parties demanding huge amount as repair charges within the warranty period is deficiency of service. Hence the complaint is filed to get compensation of Rs 1,50,000/-.

          3.      The third opposite party filed version on behalf of the other opposite parties raising the following contentions. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the laptop on 28.08.2012 and the warranty was extended up to 27.08.2015. It is admitted that on 19.03.2013 the complainant approached the second opposite party for the repairs of the laptop. Since the laptop was within the warranty period, the MBX was duly replaced without any cost and it was delivered to the complainant on 23.03.2013. There after once again the complainant approached the second opposite party stating that there was a gap in the body of the laptop. On inspection it was found that some screws on the bottom cover were missing. The second opposite party requested the complainant to deposit the laptop with them and they offered to repair the laptop free of cost. Since it was under extended warranty period. But the complainant refused to deposit the laptop and demanded the replacement of the same. The opposite parties could not comply the demand of the complainant for replacement of the laptop. There after the complainant has filed complaint with the intend to exhort money from the opposite parties. The opposite parties always attempted to take care of the complaints of the complainant. The allegation of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties is baseless. The complainant is not entitled to realise any amount from the opposite parties.

          4.      Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The report of the expert commissioner is marked as Ext.C1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.

          5.      Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite parties have preferred the present appeal.

6.      Heard both sides. Perused the records.

7.      On 28.08.2012 the complainant purchased the laptop from the first opposite party, evidenced by Ext.A1 invoice. According to the complainant within few days of the purchase of the laptop there were complaints to the laptop and as advised by the first opposite party the complainant entrusted the laptop to the second opposite party service center at Calicut and they had rectified the defects. But again there were complaints to the laptop and those complaints were rectified by the second opposite party as advised by first opposite party. On 21.09.2013 the first opposite party extended the warranty of the laptop by receiving Rs 2500/- from the complainant and the laptop has warranty up to 27.08.2015. Ext.A2 is the extended warranty pack. According to the complainant on 09..12.2013 the laptop became defective and when he took the laptop to the second opposite party they demanded Rs 5000/- as repair charges. The laptop was purchased for the use of the son who was a Be.techcomputer engineering student. Problems of the laptop caused much inconvenience to the studies of his son, as well as the complainant. So according to the complainant there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and so he has filed the complaint claiming compensation of Rs 1,50,000/-. Opposite parties admitted the purchase of laptop by the complainant from them. They have also admitted that the warranty was extended up to 27.08.2015. It is stated by the opposite parties that on 09.12.2013 when the complainant approached them they offered to repair the laptop, free of cost. But the complainant refused to deposit the laptop with them and he demanded replacement of the laptop. The second opposite party was ready to cure the defects to the laptop but the complainant refused to deposit the laptop. It is also stated by the opposite parties that they had always attended the complaints of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on their part.

8.      There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant purchased the laptop from the first opposite party and warranty of the laptop was extended up to 27.08.2015. It is an admitted fact that the second opposite party cured the defects of the laptop as per the direction of the first opposite party, when the complainant made complaints to the first opposite party. It is the case of the complainant that on 09.12.2013 when he took the laptop to the second opposite party for repair they demanded amounts. The said allegation is denied by the opposite parties. An expert commissioner was appointed from the forum and he had filed report which is marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 it is reported by the commissioner that the laptop was defective and he has noted the defects to the laptop. He reported that the defects noted by him are indication of bad mechanical design of the product. He also reported that there is bad software design of product. It is observed by the commissioner that the defects existing in the laptop of the complainant can be repaired and rectified by replacing its necessary spare parts and installing proper software. Admittedly the warranty of the laptop was extended up to 27.08.2015. In the version filed by the opposite parties it is stated that they were always willing to attend the defects of the laptop of the complainant. In Ext.C1 report there is nothing to suggest that the defects caused to the laptop of the complainant occurred due to the negligent use or handling of the same by the complainant. Considering all these facts the district forum directed the second opposite party to take the custody of the disputed laptop from the forum and repair and rectify of the defects of the laptop within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the order. We consider that there is no ground / reason to interfere with the order passed by the district forum directing second the opposite party to take the laptop from the forum and to repair and rectify its defects.

 

9.      Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and so the direction of the district forum to pay compensation and cost to the respondent / complainant is unreasonable. It is the case of the complainant that when he approached the second opposite party when there was complaint to his laptop the opposite party demanded amounts for doing repair works, even though the warranty was extended till 27.08.2015. The said allegation is denied by the opposite parties. PW1 gave deposition in tune with the allegations made by him in the complaint. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Further, in the version filed by the opposite parties, it is stated that when the complainant approached them for the repair of the laptop they informed the complainant that the repairs could be done on chargeable basis. But there after, it is stated by the opposite parties, that when the complainant appraised the second opposite party regarding the extended warranty, the second opposite party offered to repair the laptop free of cost under the said extended warranty. Regarding that submission, the second opposite party has not adduced any evidence. As rightly found by the district forum, it can be seen that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and so the complaint is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties. The complainant has purchased laptop for the son, who was a B.tech computer engineering student. The problems of the laptop caused much inconvenience to the studies of his son as well as the complainant himself. The district forum has ordered Rs 15,000/- as compensation against the opposite party no.2 and Rs 5000/- as cost against the first opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstances we consider that the compensation and cost ordered by the district forum are on the higher side and those are to be reduced to Rs 7000/- and Rs 3000/-, respectively. The order passed by the district forum is to be modified to that effect.

          In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the district forum is modified reducing the compensation to Rs 7000/- and cost of Rs 3000/-.

          Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

          Respondent / complainant is permitted to obtain release of the amount of Rs 10,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal, on proper application, to be adjusted towards the compensation and cost ordered.

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

RANJIT.R                     : MEMBER

 

 

BEENA KUMARI.A      : MEMBER

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 786/15

JUDGMENT DATED : 21.12.2018