Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/867

Shri Sumeer Ji Khushu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Sony India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                           Date of institution:06.12.2012  

Complaint Case. No.867/12                                                               Date of order:22.02.2017                  

IN  MATTER OF

Shri Sumeer Ji Khushu, 172-DDA Fats (LIG/MIG), Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077.                                                                                                                                           Complainant

VERSUS

M/s. Sony India Ltd, Regd Office at: A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.                                                                                    Opposite party-1

 

M/s. ACE Electronic Services, Sony Authroised Service Centre, J-3/7, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.                                                                                                                         Opposite party -2

     ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Briefly case of the complainant is that on 01.04.12 he purchased one camera Sony Cybershot DSC-TX55/Black from M/s. Sabharwal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vide invoice no.28 dated 01.04.12 for sale consideration of Rs.19,500/ with one year warranty.

That on 23.06.12 due to LCD display problem the camera was not found functional. The complainant took the camera to M/s. ACE Electronic Services hereinafter referred as the opposite party no.2 for repairs being authorized service centre of Sony India Ltd. manufacturer hereinafter referred as the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 told the complainant that the camera was not properly handled, therefore, cannot be repaired under warranty. He got the camera repaired on payment of repair charges of Rs.5,955/- vide job card no.J20478010 dated 23.06.12.

That on 17.11.12 the complainant noticed same defect in the camera. The complainant again visited the opposite party no.2, who told that the camera cannot be repaired under warranty. The complainant will have to pay repair charges as shown in job card no.J21494975 dated 17.11.12.

That the complainant send several emails to the opposite party no.1. But the opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed and asserted that the camera cannot be repaired under warranty. He will have to pay repair charges. The complainant is deprived of his right to use the camera. He has suffered loss of the camera. Hence, the present complaint for direction to the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs,19,500/ cost of the camera and Rs.5,955/- repair charges total amounting to Rs.25,455/- and Rs.100/- per day from 17.11.12 date of fault in the camera for mental and physical harassment and agony caused to the complainant.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed joint reply while raising preliminary objections of cause of action, maintainability, complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed just to harm and harass the opposite parties.

However, on merits the opposite parties admitted purchase of the camera by complainant manufacturered by the opposite party no.1. But asserted that on 23.06.12 when the camera was brought to the opposite party no.2 for repairs, it was found that cybershot was damaged externally. There were dents and scratches on the camera and cabinet was also broken. Therefore, the warranty of the camera had become void. The opposite party no.2 repaired the camera on receipt of Rs.5,955/- as repair charges. The camera worked perfectly till 17.11.12. On 17.11.12 when the complainant again visited the opposite party no.2 for repair of the camera , the cybershot was again found damaged externally. The opposite party no.2 prepared repair estimates. But the complainant refused to sign and accept the repair charges as the warranty had already become void. Therefore, due to adamant attitude and behavior of the complainant, the camera could not be repaired. The opposite parties are ready to repair the camera on payment of repair charges. They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties while controverting stand of the opposite parties and reiterated his stand. He once again prayed  for direction to the opposite party to pay compensation.

When Shri Sumeer Ji  Khushu complainant was asked  to lead evidence in support of his version, he filed his affidavit dated 04.09.13 narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his version also relied upon invoice no.28 dated 01.04.12 as annexure-A-1, Job Sheet no.J2/FY12-07/001491 dated 03.07.12 as annexure-A-2, warranty card as annexure A-3 and retail invoice no.J2/FY12-11/NIL/009569 dated 17.11.12 as annexure A-4.

From the perusal of the documents relied upon by the complainant, it reveals that he purchased camera Sony Cybershot DSC-TX55/Black from M/s. Sabharwal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vide invoice no.28 dated 01.04.12  for sale consideration of Rs.19,500/- with one year warranty.

When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence, they filed affidavit of Meena Bose dated  16.01.14 narrating facts of the reply. The opposite parties in support of their case have relied upon warranty with terms and conditions.

The parties have also filed written submission in support of their respective claim.

We have heard complainant and counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

From the complaint, reply, affidavits and documents relied upon by both the sides, it is common case of the parties that the complainant purchased camera Sony Cybershot DSC-TX55/Black from M/s. Sabharwal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vide invoice no.28 dated 01.04.12 with one year warranty. The camera became defective on 23.06.12. He deposited the camera with the opposite party no.2 on 23.06.12. On inspection of the camera, the camera  was found damaged externally. The warranty had become void. The opposite party no.2 charged Rs.5,955/- from complainant for repairs of the camera. The camera again became defective on 17.11.12. The complainant took the camera to the opposite party no.2. On inspection of the cybershot it was again found damaged externally. The case of the opposite party is that the warranty had become void. In support of their case, the opposite parties have relied upon warranty card with terms and conditions. It is worthwhile to reproduce relevant part of terms and conditions of the warranty. Which reads as under:-

“This warranty shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening, ingress of water, fire or Acts of God, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control and / or any damage cause due to tampering of the product by an unauthorized agent”.

Similar are facts of the present complaint. The camera was externally damaged. Therefore, it falls under exclusion clause-8 of terms and conditions of the warranty. The opposite parties were ready to repair the camera on payment of repair charges. But the complainant himself refused to pay repair charges. Therefore, there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, there is no merit in the complaint. The complaint is dismissed. 

 

             

Order pronounced on :22.02.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

        (URMILA GUPTA)                                                                              (R.S.BAGRI)                                       MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT