Haryana

Jind

CC/16/44

Pardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Electronics Emporium Op1 And Sonipat Services OP2 And Sony India Private Limited Op3 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. B.S. Rana

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 49 of 2016
   Date of Institution: 29.4.2016
   Date of final order: 12.8.2016

Pardeep @ Pardeep Singh son of Sh. Suraj Bhan resident of village Bass Badshahpur, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Electronics Emporium SCF-29-30 Rani Talab, Jind, District Jind through its Proprietor.
Sonipat Service Sony Authorized Service Centre, SCO-54, P.W.D. BSR Store, ner P.N.B. main Branch, Jind, District Jind through its authorized person.
Sony India Private Limied registered office-A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura road, New Delhi0110 044 through its Managing Director/Authorized person.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Pardeep complainant in person.
          Opposite parties already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased  Sony Digital Camera8337550 for a sum of Rs.11,500/- from opposite party No.1 vide cash memo/invoice No.1984 dated 24.9.2012, which is manufactured by opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2 is service provider. The opposite party No.1 has given 3 
            Pardeep Vs. Electronics Emporium etc.
                    …2…
years warranty of the above said camera. After some time the above said camera did not work properly and started  giving the problem of Lens and the Lens was not coming out properly. The complainant approached to opposite party No.1 and told about the defects of  the camera. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to get his camera repaired from opposite party No.2 who is authorized service centre of Company. Thereafter, the complainant visited the care centre of opposite party No.2 several times for removing the defects of the  camera but the defects of the camera were not removed by the opposite party No.2. The complainant served a legal notice dated 2.2.2016 through his counsel upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  refund the cost of camera i.e. Rs.11,500/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. as well as to pay a sum of  Rs.70,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Opposite parties were proceeded against  ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 29.6.2016.
3.    In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced cash memo Annexure C-1, warranty card Annexure C-2, copy of job sheet Annexure C-3, legal notice dated 2.2.2016 Annexure C-4, postal receipt Annexure C-5 and affidavit of complainant Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence.  
4.    We have heard the arguments of complainant in person and perused the record placed on file. The complainant stated that he had 
            Pardeep Vs. Electronics Emporium etc.
                    …3…
purchased the camera for a sum of Rs.11,500/- from opposite party No.1 vide cash memo/invoice No.1984 dated 24.9.2012. He further stated that after some time   above said Camera did not work properly and said camera was having the problem of Lens and the Lens was not coming out properly. The complainant visited the authorized service centre of the company for its repair as per Annexure C-3 within the warranty period but the camera could not be repaired. 
5.    After hearing complainant  and gone through the record placed on file, the grievance of the complainant that during the warranty period the camera has become defective as the lens is not coming out properly as it is broken in side and the opposite parties refused to rectify the defect of the camera. We have gone through the job sheet Annexure C-3 it is clear that  customer complaint  regarding lens is not coming  out properly because it is broken from in side. On the complaint of the complainant the service centre of the opposite party after checking the camera endorsed /comments that warranty void due to physical damage.  We have also gone through the warranty card Annexure C-2 and  as per terms and conditions No.8 this warranty shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening, ingress of water, fire or act of God, improper ventilation, dropping are excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control and or any damage caused due to tempering of the product by an unauthorized agent. From the perusal of the record it reveals that the complainant has purchased the said camera on 24.9.2012 and the company has given limited warranty for a period 
            Pardeep Vs. Electronics Emporium etc.
                    …4…
of 3 years. The complainant first time made a complaint regarding the inside broken lens on 17.6.2015 meaning thereby after a period of 2years and about 9 months. The version of the complainant is not believable that the camera is not working properly from the very beginning because the complainant has not filed any document/
evidence  which shows that the camera is not working properly from the very beginning. We are of the view that the inside lens could not be broken with some external impact. Apart from this the complainant has not filed any expert opinion/report to prove this version that the camera in question have manufacturing defect. As per Clause No.8 of the  terms and conditions of warranty card the manufacturer is not responsible if the article  is physical damaged. The complainant has failed to prove his case.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly this Forum has no hesitation to dismiss the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own litigation expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 12.8.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

  Pardeep Vs. Electronics Emporium etc.
                    
Present:  Sh. Pardeep complainant in person.
          Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

             Arguments heard. To come up on 12.8.2016 for orders.
                                     President,
        Member           Member            DCDRF, Jind
                                10.8.2016

Present:  Sh. Pardeep complainant in person.
          Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

              Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 
                                     President,
        Member           Member            DCDRF, Jind
                                12.8.2016