By Jayasree Kallat, Member:
The petition was filed on 6-12-2006. The petition is filed by the complainant under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. On 4-2-2006 the complainant purchased a Video Cam from opposite paprty-1, it was manufactured by opposite party-2. Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.18740/- for the Video Cam. Opposite party had assured that the instrument was of very good quality and it carries a warranty for a period of three years. Complainant was informed by opposite party-1 that no special or professional skill is required to operate the instrument purchased by the complainant. When the complainant tried to use the Video Cam the next day on 5-4-2006 he got only the distorted pictures. He did not get clear pictures. The complainant informed opposite paprty-1 about the observed defects of the instrument immediately. The complainant’s complaints were not attended by opposite party immediately, but later on after repeated phone calls a service person from opposite party-3 and inspected the instrument. The service person of opposite party-3 could not locate default of the instrument. Complainant had communicated these facts several times to both opposite party-1 the dealer and opposite paprty-3 the service person. But both O.P.1 and O.P.3 failed to detect the fault in the Video Cam. Complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party-1 in selling a low quality product and O.P.3 not attending to the complaints regarding the product and rectifying the defects. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint is filed seeking compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to him owing to the negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties.
Opposite party-1 filed version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party-1 admits the purchase of the Video Cam by the complainant from opposite party-1. Opposite party-1 has denied all other allegation put forward by the complainant in his complaint. Opposite party-3 is the authorized service centre of the instrument and opposite party-1 other than selling the products is not liable for its service. As per the terms of the warranty only authorized service centers could carry out the service of the instrument. The instrument was free of defect when the complainant purchased it. The complainant could not load the software of the instrument in his computer properly only because of the defect in his computer. Opposite party-1 is still willing to take the initiative to replace the LCD part of the instrument, on complainant take the instrument with the warranty card to opposite party-1 before the expiry of the warranty. Opposite party-1 is not liable to compensate the complainant as there was no defect in their service. Hence opposite party-1 prays to dismiss the petition with costs to opposite party.
Opposite party-2 filed version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. At the time of purchase of the Video Cam manufactured by opposite party-2 there was no complaint. The complainant was provided with warranty card. Video Cam was purchased on 4-5-2006 and as per the communication received by Opposite party-3 service centre regarding requirement of demo as the complainant was facing some problem, a demo was duly provided on 5-5-2006. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite party-2.. The service centre had expressed the willingness to attend to the complaints and rectified the defects in the video cam of the complainant. At the time of demonstration the authorized peson noticed that the complainant’s personal computer was corrupted and for this reason he could not install the software of video cam. Opposite party-2 denies the allegation that the product of opposite party-2 are of low quality. The video cam is in perfect working condition and only complaint is made by this complainant which was duly attended. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party-2. Opposite party-2 is ready and willing to rectify any complaint regarding the video cam if in any found after inspection by the authorized service personal, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Opposite party-2 is not liable to refund the money to the complainant or paying any compensation as there was no defect in the video cam and are willing to make a defect free if the complainant takes it to the authorized service centre. Therefore Opposite party-2 prays to dismiss the petition.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation?
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral or documentary evidence on Opposite parties’ side.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a video cam on 4-2-2006 from Opposite party-1 which was manufactured by Opposite party-2. Complainant had paid Rs.18740/- for the video cam. According to the complainant Opposite party-1 had assured that the instrument was of very good quality and it carried a warranty for a period of 3 years. Complainant has produced the warranty card Ext.A3. In Ext.A3 it is mentioned that Sony India Private Limited warranty is the product to be free from manufacturing defect for a period of one year from the time of its original purchase. As per the warranty if any defects occurred within one year of purchase the service centre is bound to make it defect free free of cost. Here in this case complainant is alleging that the video cam was not functioning the very next day of purchase. Opposite party-1 and Opposite party-2 in their version had stated that they are ready to service the instrument and make it defect free if the complainant brings the instrument along with warranty card. In the version of Opposite party-1 5th para they have stated that Opposite party-1 is still willing to take the initiative to replace the LCD part of the instrument on complainant brings the instrument with warranty card before the expiry of warranty. In the same way Opposite party-2 has stated in their version Para-12 that Opposite party-2 is ready and willing to rectify any complaint regarding the video cam if in any found after inspection by the authorized service personal, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. From the version of opposite party-1 and 2 it is clear that complainant had informed of mal functioning of the video cam on next day of purchase itself. The service centre had duly attended to the complaint. The complainant was asked to take the instrument to the service centre along with the warranty card. So that they can make it defect free as per the warranty condition. From the evidence it has come out that the complainant has not handed over the warranty card to the opposite party. In our opinion the complainant has expended an amount of Rs.18740/- for purchasing the video cam. According to the complainant it is not working properly. Opposite parties-1 and 2 had stated that there is no defect in the instrument but if the complainant is not satisfactory with the function, they can inspect and make the instrument in a proper working condition. The complainant has not taken the instrument to the opposite party because according to him the opposite parties were not able to demonstrate the functioning of the video cam properly. We are of the opinion that the complainant has not made use of the warranty period. As the opposite parties have expressed their willingness to rectify the defects if any opposite parties are directed to inspect the instrument and rectify the defects along with giving the complainant an extended warranty of one more year.
In the result petition is allowed directing the opposite parties to make the instrument of the complainant defect free and also to give a fresh warranty for one year from the date of repair. The complainant is also liable to get a compensation of Rs.500/- from the opposite parties.
Pronounced in the open court this the open court this the 18th day of June 2011.
Date of filing:06.12.2006.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Tax invoice for Rs.18740/- dtd.04.02.2006.
A2. Receipt of Ist opposite party dtd. 04..02.06 &14.03.06.(2 in Nos.)
A3.Warranty card dtd. 04.02.2006.
A4.Receipt for Rs. 29000/- dtd. 02.02.05.
Documents exhibited for the opposite parties.
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant.
PW1. Sajeesh.M (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded /By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
