Haryana

StateCommission

A/244/2015

SONY INDIA PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAVITA HOODA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT ARORA

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      244 of 2015

Date of Institution:      12.03.2015

Date of Decision :       08.12.2015

 

Sony India Private Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

 

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Kavita Hooda w/o Sh. Sandeep Hooda, Advocate, H.No.19/29, Chanakyapuri, Rohtak.

Computer Planet, Shop No.3, Trust Market, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Amit Arora, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal filed by Opposite Party is directed against the order dated February 11^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby the appellant/opposite party was held deficient in service for selling a defective Sony EA33 Note Book (laptop) to the complainant and directed as under:-

                   “9.     In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions, it is directed that the opposite party No.2 shall refund the price of laptop i.e. Rs.39,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 07.10.2011 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant and in turn the complainant shall hand over the laptop in question to the opposite party.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision filing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

                  

2.      Kavita-complainant/respondent, purchased a Sony EA33 Note Book (laptop) from Computer Planet, Rohtak, for Rs.39,500/- on February 26^th, 2011. It was found defective. She filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund of the price of laptop and compensation.

3.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply stating therein that under the terms of warranty, their liability was only to repair the product and not to replace the same unless the same suffers from a manufacturing defect, which is not in the instant case.  During the hearing of complaint, the speaker and battery of the laptop were replaced vide Job Card dated 23^rd December, 2011 (Annexure A-6).

4.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the appellant/opposite party as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order. Hence appeal.

5.      None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/complainant for the last two consecutive hearings. Today also the position is the same.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite parties while assailing the order of the District Forum has relied upon the Warranty Card (Annexure A-3) alongwith the terms and conditions annexed thereto.

7.      A perusal of Condition No.10 of the Warranty Card shows that the liability of the appellant was to replace the defective part and the same has already been done by it vide Job Card Annexure A-6.

8.      Since the warranty was only for removal of defective parts which have already been replaced by the appellant, the District Forum fell in error by issuing direction to refund the price of laptop. As such the impugned order cannot sustain.

9.      For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 08.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL