DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.

Arvindvir Singh Barrer aged 28 years son of Sh.Varinder Singh, H.No.78, Doctors Colony,Bhadson Road,Patiala.

1.                M/s Amar Enterprises, Opposite Gurudwara Kashmirian, Tripuri ,Patiala.

2.                M/s SonyIndia

3.                Sankalp Electronics,2 Bhupindra Road,Opp.KhubsuratPalace, Near 22 No. Railway Crossing,Patiala.

Present:

For the complainant:       

For opposite party No.1:       

For opposite party No.2:       

For opposite party No.3:       

SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

2.                                  

of  

3.                                  

4.                                  India

5.                                  purchase

conditions were specifically mentioned. That it was informed to the complainant that he was entitled to warranty upon the purchase of the laptop in question subject to the terms and conditions. It is denied that on 8.1.2010, the laptop in question started giving problem and the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 for rectification of the problem and the opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to approach the opposite party no.3.That the complainant was provided warranty card upon the purchase of the laptop in question and in the warranty card, it was specifically stated that for any after sale services, the complainant was required to contact the authorized service centre of the opposite party no.2 and as such the allegations of approaching the opposite party no.1 are false and misconceived and liable to be rejected .That the opposite party no.1 provides after sale services through its authorized service centre and the fact was duly informed to the complainant at the time of purchase of the laptop in question. It is denied that the engineers of opposite party no.3 advised the complainant to leave the aforesaid laptop at their service center. It is further denied that the complainant requested to check the aforesaid laptop in question in his presence, but the engineers of the opposite party no.3 informed the complainant that they never check the product in presence of the customer and again advised to leave the laptop in question with the opposite partyno.3. It is denied that the complainant left the laptop in question and after ten minutes, received a call from the opposite party no.3 that there was water in hard disk and the complainant was asked to pay Rs.20000/- for repair of the laptop in question. That the complainant approached the opposite party no.3 with defect of hard disk not working and the alleged complaint was duly attended by the opposite party no.3 and upon inspection of the laptop in question, the same was found with some water on the hard disk and also on the mother board, hence it was the water gone case and as such in terms of warranty, the complainant was not entitled to free of cost repair and it was informed to the complainant that the repair of the laptop in question would be carried out on chargeable basis. That initially the complainant agreed to pay the repair charges and upon his request, the laptop in question was retained for providing an estimate of repair and subsequently an estimate for the part of “A1752030A” of Rs.19,958.20 was also provided by the opposite party no.3.That the complainant did not give approval for the said estimate hence the laptop in question was not repaired by the opposite party no.3 and hence there is no deficiency of services on the part of the opposite party no.2 and the complaint under reply is liable to be rejected by this Forum. That it was correctly informed to the complainant by the opposite party no.2 vide e-mail dated 13.1.2010 containing the true and correct facts. It is submitted that the complainant is unsuccessfully trying to twist the true and correct facts of the present case from this Forum and as such the complaint under reply is liable to be dismissed. It is denied that there was no defect in the laptop due to external factor as alleged. It is further denied that the complainant apprehends that fiddling with the lap top must have been done by the service engineers of the opposite party no.3 and that was the reason that the service engineers of the opposite party no.3 did not check and open the aforesaid laptop in question in presence of the complainant. It is further denied that the defect of water logging was found within 15 minutes after the complainant left the office of opposite party no.3 then that defect could have been checked there and then also. That the laptop in question was checked and inspected in front of the complainant and in fact the complainant was informed about the estimate at that time only, and now the complainant is making false and frivolous allegations in the present complaint. That there is no deficiency of services on the part of  

6.                                  

7.                                  

8.                                  

9.                                    approached the opposite party no.1 for rectification of the problem and opposite party no.1 advised him to approach the opposite party no.3 being authorized service centre of Sony India Limited. It is also the case of complainant that he approached the opposite party no.3 on 8.1.2010 and the engineers of the opposite party no.3 advised him to leave the laptop at their service centre. He requested to check the aforesaid laptop in his presence, but the engineers of the opposite party no.3 informed him that they never check the product in presence of the customer and opposite party no.3 that isthe reason that the service engineers of the opposite party no.3 did not check and open the   

10.                                 

11.                                 

12.                                   

13.                                

14.                                

15.                                 

16.                                

Pronounced.

Dated:29.10.2010.