BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 22^nd day of August 2015

Filed on : 11-06-2012

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.346/2012

Between

The Marine Products Export : Complainant

Development Authority, (By Adv. Mathews K. Uthuppachan

MPEDA House, Panampilly Avenue, Joseph & Kuriyan, 42/2260,

P.B. No. 4272, Kochi-682 036. Providence Road, Kochi

Rep. by its Secretary. Pin-682 018)

And

1. M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. : Opposite parties

Regd. Office at: No. A31,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, (1^st O.P.by Adv. George Cherian

Madurai road, New Delhi-110 044, Karippaparambil, H.B.48,

rep. by its Managing Director. Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-

682 036)

Local Office at:

M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

2^nd floor, Muscat Tower,

S.A. Road, Kadavanthara,

Cochin-682 020.

Rep. by its Managing Director.

2. M/s. Madonna Care Centre, (2^nd O.P. by Adv.T.C. Krishna,

Sony Authorized Service Centre, Sreesadan, Azad road, Cochin

Door No. 334/D1, Menaka Arcade, Pin-682 017)

Janatha Junction, Vytila,

Cochin-682 019.

Rep. by its Manager.

3. M/s. Neural Network Pvt. Ltd., (3^rd O.P. absent)

37/1444. Emmanuel road,

Kadavanthara, Kaloor road,

Cochin-682 020.

Rep. by its Managing Director.

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

The complainant in this case is Marine Export Development Authority represented by its secretary.

The complainant’s case.

The complainant is the statutory body established under Marine Product Export Authority Act 1972, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India having its registered office at Kochi. According to the complainant, the complainant purchased a new Sony Vaio laptop manufactured by the 1^st opposite party for the personal use of the Chairman of the complainant, from the 3^rd opposite party M/s. Natural Network Private Ltd., Kadavanthra, Kochi on 12-06-2009. The purchase order of the laptop was pursuant to a quotation dated 09-06-2009 and the laptop was billed and supplied in the name of M/s. Marine Products Export Development Authority and installed on the same day. The laptop was having a warranty of 3 years from the date of purchase. The chairman of the complainant authority faced several problems due to improper functioning and innumerable break downs of the laptop. Though the laptop was provided with a warranty for 3 years, the opposite parties refused to provide warranty for 3 years and insisted the complainant to take extended warranty for two years within one year of the purchase of the tap top by paying Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant contacted the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party (opposite party No. 2) for the repairs. The complainant was non-synchronization of movement on the touch pad in the cursor movement.

The time delay was very high when the lap lop was used during charging. The defective touch part was replaced after taking 13 days for carrying its 1^st service. Even after periodical repairs the laptop was not functioning properly causing much inconvenience to the Chairman of the complainant for whose personal use the said laptop was purchased by the complainant authority. Due to improper functioning of the laptop the information stored in the lap top could not be used effectively for presenting data during conference at the European Commissioner’s Secretariat. The laptop have let-down the image of the Chairman, MPEDA, who is a Senior IAS officer and the Indian Representative who attended the European Commission secretariat, causing much embarrassment and mental agony to the Chairman of the complainant authority during important meetings. The request for the replacement of the defective laptop was turned down by the opposite parties. During the USA trip of the Chairman of the complainant authority the WiFi of the laptop was not working and therefore the chairman could not keep in touch with his office and home and had to use the fax and telephoned for the purpose. Even though the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party to provide the address and telephone number of the service centre at Boston and New York. The opposite party could not provide the same. On each occasion the laptop was given to the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party, the chairman of the complainant authority had asked for a substitute but no such substitute was provided. Due to recurring nature of the complaint with the laptop. It is obvious that there is manufacturing defect and other defects in the lap top supplied to the complainant. The service rendered by all the opposite parties on this account was grossly unsatisfactory and deficient. The laptop is not merchantable quality. The

whole purpose for buying a new laptop was to avoid carrying all original documents and for a communication purposes with his office and home while on travel of the Chairman. The negligent and callous conduct of the opposite party has resulted in considerable inconvenience and harassment to the chairman of the complainant authority. In the circumstances the complainant seeks refund of the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- being the price of the laptop paid to the opposite parties. The complainant seeks in the alternative for the replacement of the defective laptop with brand new one and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and costs of the proceedings through this complaint.

2. Notices were issued to all the 3 opposite parties. Except the 3^rd opposite party, other opposite parties appeared and filed version contending inter-alia as follows:

Version of 1^st opposite party

The products manufactured by the 1^st opposite party are sold to the customers through the net work of authorized dealers and repair services are provided through net work of authorized service centers across the country. The 1^st opposite party had provided a warranty for one year and the 1^st opposite party cannot be held liable for the claim falling outside the scope of the warranty. However, since there was an extended warranty, the laptop was carrying a warranty period from 12-06-2009 to 12-06-2012. The complainant was primarily using the laptop for office purposes. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party with a complaint regarding the touch pad of the laptop and the USB port of the laptop in the month of March 2010. The 1^st opposite party, despite the defect being repairable, had replaced the laptop of the complainant as a goodwill gesture and a new laptop was provided to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant

registered another complaint on 01-09-2011 due to the breakage of LCD Bezel. That complaint was repaired by the opposite party No. 2 as per the terms and conditions of the extended warranty. The next complaint was on 14-12-2011 and that was regarding the internal CD drive. The laptop was delivered after due repairs on 30-12-2011. A further complaint was filed on 19-03-2012 alleging that there was problem with WIFI system. That defect was also repaired and the laptop was delivered on 20-03-2011. On examination of the laptop by the 2^nd opposite party further complaints were found to be nil and the laptop was in perfect working condition. The complaint dated 29-06-2012 was after the period of extended warranty. The service engineer had found that the defect of the laptop was occurring repeatedly because the said set was not being handled carefully by the complainant. The complaint with regard to the SSD HDD was due to mechanical shock. The claim of refund for Rs. 1,60,000/- made by the complainant is not tenable. The complaints were repaired during the warranty period and therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is sought to be dismissed.

3. Version of the 2^nd opposite party.

The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is a statutory body and the laptop was purchased purely for official use which would come within the ambit of commercial purpose. All the complaints regarding the laptop were attended by the 2^nd opposite party with utmost accuracy and promptness. There was scratches all over the body of the laptop and there was a crack on LCD Bezel. The

mother board was replaced under warranty terms. The defective CD drive was replaced free of cost. The WIFI card was refixed and all the complaints were properly taken during the warranty period. The 2^nd opposite party is prepared to repair the laptop if the service cost is paid, since the laptop is now out of warranty. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.

4. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration.

i. Whether the complaint maintainable?

ii. Whether there was any proved deficiency in service on the part of

the opposite parties as alleged?

iii. Is the complainant entitled to get compensation and costs as

prayed for?

iv. Reliefs and costs.

1. 5. Issue Nos. i to iii. The case was taken up for evidence of the complainant. The complainant in this case is Marine Product Export Development Authority. The complaint was filed representing the Secretary of the complainant authority. The Laptop purchased by the complainant authority was meant for the use of the chairman of the authority. Nither the Chairman nor the Secretary of the Authority who was competent to represent the authority has turned up to adduce evidence. Today when the matter was taken up, the Secretary Smt. Meena Bose of the complainant authorityhad authorized Ms. Usha Singh, the System Analyst to represent MPDA in the complaint and to give evidence. Going by the nature of the

complaint it is seen that the lap top was personally used by the Chairman and he is the most competent person to speak of regarding the difficulties faced by him or her during the usage of the laptop. In the absence of evidence of the Chairman and in the absence of taking out a commission to prove that the laptop was inherently defective. We find that Mrs. Usha Singh who was authorized by the complainant authority without the support of a resolution of the authority, is found incompetent to adduce evidence regarding the matters in issuu in this case. The case of the complainant as per the pleadings is that the laptop is having inherent manufacturing defect requiring its replacement. The further complaint was that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party in delaying the period of repairs. When the matter was taken up for evidence as last chance the affected parties did not turn out but chose to substitute a paid employee to deliver the required evidence before the Forum. Consumer Protection Act has been emacted for safety and protection of ordinary consumers. Consumer Forum is not meant to satisfy the ego of the authorities of the Government by simply sitting in their office and to send by its employees to adduce evidence as if the Consumer Fora was expected to imbibe and conceive the evidence of paid employees when practical evidence sought to have been adduced for the affected parties themselves. When the chairman of the complainant authority had suffered loss and mental agony, for claiming compensation in Indian Justice delivery system demands the affected party to produce admissible evidence before the Judicial Forum. In the absence of direct evidence adduced by the person who had actually used the lap top we find that the complaint has been filed only to satisfy the ego of a bureaucrat and not to comply the needs of consumer. We find the complaint is eminently not for consideration through the Consumer Redressal Mechanism.

6. Issue No. iv. The complaint has been filed by an authority under the Government of India on the advice of an Administrative Officer, Government of India had spent lot of money in filing this complaint, engaging an advocate paying his fees and the like to satisfy the ego of bureaucrat, who was expected to know the object and reasons for the enactment of law. In the above circumstances, we find that any further steps taken on the complaint to proceed with would be an abuse of process of law. We dismiss the complaint with costs of the opposite parties and with a direction to deposit Rs. 25,000/- towards Consumer Welfare Fund within a period of one month.

The above said order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of August 2015

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.