BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.28/2014

Dated this the 6^th day of January 2015.

Chinmaya Mohini,

S/o.Bijayananda Mohini

Room No.39,

Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Hostel

Pondicherry University,

RV Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014.                                   ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. Max Electronics,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

    Authorised Sony Service Centre,

    No.149, Needarajappayyar Street,

    Puducherry-605 001.

2. Managing Director

    Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

   A 31, Mohan Co operative Industrial Estate,

   Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.

3. Sony Service Centre,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

    Shop 02, Door 53, Ground Floor,

    Wellington Estate, Ethiraj Salai,

    Egmore 600 008.

4. Sony India Branch Office,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

    City Centre, 3^rd Floor, Plot  A 5/1,

    Unit IX, Sachivalaya Marg,

    Bhubaneswar 751 022.                                                    ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

THIRU S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE, B.Com.,B.L.,

MEMBER

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         :Party in person

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: Thiru.S.K.Arunachalam, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying :

1. To direct the first opposite party to pay compensation amount of Rs.10000/- for the financial loss and waste of time and energy suffered by the complainant due to the negligence and carelessness by the opposite parties.
2. To direct the first opposite party to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the educational loss as well as mental agony, sleeplessness and health problems suffered by the complainant in those 68 days while trying to study by some other means on his own.
3. To direct the first opposite party to pay compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the travelling expenses and loss of time and energy of the complainant to be borne during the case
4. To direct the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant has bought a laptop with model No.SVS15116GNB IN5 with serial no.7000100 from IBC Systems, Berhampur, Odisha on 1^st August 2012 with a payment of Rs.75,000/-.  After around 11 months, the complainant had a corrupted operating system problem and submitted the Laptop to the 1^st opposite party on 25.07.2013 under warranty to resolve the problem.  When the complainant called after four days, the 1^st OP said that they had sent the Laptop to the third opposite party for repairing as they did not have the resources. After 10 days, he went to the first opposite party on 05.08.2013, therein he found that the laptop had been returned to the 1^st OP and the mentioned problem was resolved.  However, the laptop was heavily damaged physically with all the corners of the laptop smashed.  1^st OP said that the problem might have occurred at the third opposite party or in transit and asked him to left the laptop with the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant sent an e-Mail on 7^th August 2013 to the Sony Customer Care regarding the problem, for which he got reply on 08.08.2013 mentioning that they would look into the problem soon.  After around one and half week, the 1^st opposite party called the complainant and said that they had spoken to the 3^rd opposite party and the cabinet of the laptop would be replaced.  When the complainant asked about the replacement of internal parts, if any, the 1^st opposite party said that there were no internal damages. If any damage would be found in future within the extended warranty period, it would be repaired in free of cost and they assured to inform when the complainant s laptop ready.

3.         When the complainant contacted the customer care, they informed that the problem was major and it would take around 2weeks.  He waited for around two weeks and called the 1^st opposite party to know the status.  They said that the laptop was sent to the third opposite party for replacement of cabin.  Till 6^th September 2013,  the first opposite party has not given the laptop.  On the same day, he sent an e-Mail to the Sony Customer Care but there was no reply from them.   The complainant repeatedly went to the first opposite party to know the status of the laptop but they have given the same reply i.e. the laptop would be ready within 2 days.  The complainant sent a letter to all the opposite parties on 16.09.2013 for which no reply was received by him from any of the opposite parties.  After 68 days of submitting the laptop, on 30.09.2013, the first opposite party informed the complainant that they had received the laptop and the complainant received the laptop on that day.  When the complainant asked the first opposite party to mention in the delivery job sheet about the physical damage, but they refused to mention the same.  After taking the laptop to room, he found that all the stickers from the old cabinet have been moved to the new one and hence they wore out.  The complainant is a student of post graduation in computer science, the laptop is necessary for his course.  All those 68 days, the complainant was facing problem for carrying out his projects, for preparing for the exams, etc. He was waiting awake at nights to use their friends' laptop after they fell asleep to do all the above works and hence he was suffering from minor health problems.  The complainant had a gap of 68 days in his study life and hence will have a decreased result in his career due to the negligence, carelessness and deficiency of service of the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint.

4.         The reply version of the opposite parties is as follows:

            The opposite party denies each and every allegation made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply.   The Managing Director of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., has wrongly been arrayed as party in the present complaint and the opposite party no.2 may be substituted as Sony India  Pvt. Ltd.  The products of the second opposite party are sold to customers through a network of its authorised dealers and after sales service on those products are provided through a network of its authorised service centre across the country.  It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant has bought a laptop with model No.SVS15116GNB IN5 with serial no.7000100 on 01.08.2012.  The complainant approached the first opposite party on 25.07.2013 with the complaint "OS corrupted, no booting".  As the first opposite party did not have the requisite recovery DVD , the laptop was sent to the third opposite party.  The repaired laptop was received from OP.3 by OP.1 in the first week of August 2013.  At the time of delivery of the laptop to the complainant, it was discovered that the laptop had been damaged externally. Immediately, the first opposite party took the responsibility of the damage and assured to rectify the problem. Once again the first opposite party sent the laptop to the third opposite party so that the outer cabinet of the laptop could be replaced. However, due to non availability of parts required at the time,  the replacement of the outer cabinet of the laptop took a longer time than anticipated.  The first opposite party received the rectified laptop on 30.09.2013  and the complainant collected the same after satisfying himself with the condition and working of the laptop.   Even the opposite parties, as a goodwill gesture and to settle the matter amicably, have offered to replace the laptop of the complainant with a current nearest equivalent of the laptop free of cost, but the complainant has refused for the said offer.  Therefore it becomes clear that the present complaint has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the opposite parties and to make a wrongful gain.

5.         In Punjab Tractors Ltd., Vs Vir Pratap (1997) II CONSUMER PROTECTION JUDGEMENT 81 (NC), it is held that where the complaint of the complainant were duly and promptly attended to by the opposite party and no reliable evidence was produced by the complainant in support of her case and he suffered a loss due to inconvenience caused to her, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  In the present, it is very clear that the opposite parties have always attempted to take care of the complaints of the complainant and has never been deficient in the services provided to the complainant. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

6.         On the side of the complainant, he examined himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C9 marked. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on the side of the opposite parties.

7.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the Consumer?
2. Whether any deficiency in service attributed by the opposite parties?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

8.         Point No.1:  

            The complainant has purchased one Laptop Sony Vaio SVS151169NB and back pack Laptop for valid consideration of Rs.75,000/- from the opposite parties 2 and 3 on 01.08.2012 and the Laptop was duly handed over to the opposite parties 1 and 3 for service on 25.07.2013. Hence the complainant is the consumer for the opposite parties.

9.         Point No.2:

               We have perused the pleading, reply version, Exs.C1 to C9, the evidence adduced by the complainant and heard the arguments.  From the above materials we came to know that there is no dispute in respect of the purchase of laptop and service availed by the complainant.  Further, no dispute regarding the service rendered by the opposite parties 1 and 3 on 25.07.2013 for the problem of software corruption and rectification.  The dispute was in respect of the physical damage caused on the four corners of the said laptop on 05.08.2013. The opposite parties 1 and 3 admitted the physical damage caused by them and accepted to change the cabinet of the said laptop and retained with them for replacement.

10.       The complainant sent reminders through Exs.C4, C5 and C8 demanding the opposite parties to return back the rectified laptop.  The opposite parties have not responded the request made by the complainant.  After the delay of 68 days i.e. on 30.09.2013 the first opposite party delivered the laptop to the complainant vide Ex.C7.

11.       The complainant being a student, alleged that during the said period of 68 days he was facing problem in his studies i.e. submission of assignment and projects and for his examinations. The complainant further alleged that the purpose for which the laptop purchased is not fulfilled due to the deficient service of the opposite parties.

12.       The opposite parties denied the allegation made by the complainant except the delay in replacing the cabinet.   The third opposite party further averred that due to non-availability of the parts required at the time, the replacement of the outer cabinet of the laptop took a longer time than anticipated. And further submitted  that the delay caused in the replacement of the outer cabinet of the laptop was solely on account of circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties and was not deliberate. The opposite parties submitted in their reply version that as a goodwill gesture and to settle the matter amicably,  have offered to replace the laptop of the complainant with a current nearest equivalent of the laptop free of cost.

13.       From the above discussion it is clear that there is a delay caused by the opposite parties for more than 68 days to return back the laptop to the complainant.  The purpose for which the laptop purchased was not served by the complainant.  The computer is very much essential one for the post graduation in computer science students for their studies. Except the pleadings made by the complainant he has not filed any documents in support of his claim in regard loss and sufferings s sustained by him as a student

14        To meet the ends of justice, we are inclined to order the opposite parties to replace the laptop with a current nearest equivalent of the laptop at free of cost to the complaint as offered by them.  The complainant is entitled for the compensation for the loss and suffering sustained by him for the delay and deficiency in service of the opposite parties.  Therefore this point is answered in favour of the complainant and this complaint is hereby allowed.

15.       Point No.3:

            In the result, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs. The opposite parties are directed

1. To replace laptop with a current nearest equivalent value of the disputed laptop at free of cost to the complaint
2. The complainant is hereby directed to return the disputed laptop to the first opposite party on receipt of a new one.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury sustained by the complainant for the delay and deficiency in service of the opposite parties.
4. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings .
5. The above said order should be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 6^th day of January 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANT S WITNESS:  

CW.1             15.10.2014                Chinmaya Mohini

OPPOSITE PARTIES  WITNESS:  Nil

 COMPLAINANT S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY S EXHIBITS:    Nil

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER