Date of filing: 31.12.2013.

                                                                                       Date of disposal: 24.7.2014.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:

VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)

     Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L.,        Member

             Thursday, the 24^th day of July, 2014

C.C.No.14 of 2014

Between:

Yerineni Vamsi Mohan, S/o Subhaschendra Bose, Indian, Hindu, Aged 36 years, Business, R/o.F-3, Amrutha Apartments, Sri Nagar Colony, Vijayawada. 

                                   …..Complainant.

And

1.  M/s Sony India Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Manager, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 44.

2.  M/s Sony India Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Regional Customer Care Incharge, Customer    Centric Division, Krishna Complex, No.889, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam,    Chennai – 600106.

3.  M/s Sony India Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Branch Manager, Dr.No.59-10-1/A, Matha   Towers, 4^th Floor, Ring Road, Vijayawada – 10.

4.  Sony Authorized Service Center, Rep: by its Service Manager, Pranank Electronics,

     Dr.No.40-6-4A, Opp: Boyapati Building (BSNL), Kandhari Road, Vijayawada – 10.

                                             .. … Opposite parties.

This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 16.7.2014, in the presence of Sri B. Hari Ram, advocate for complainant; Sri G. Narasimha Rao, advocate for opposite party no.1; opposite parties 2 to 4 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:

O R D E R

(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties directing them to replace the new music system instead of existing troubled system or to return the price f Rs.50,000/-, directing them to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony, for costs and other reliefs.

1.         The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

            The complainant in the year 2005 purchased AIWA system Model BMZ K7D, S.No.3501744 from Krishna Electronics, Vijayawada by spending Rs.50,000/-marketed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 with a belief that in case of any repairs, the same shall be done by opposite parties 3 and 4 in future.  While the matter stood thus, for the last few years, it is frequently troubling while operating.  As such the complainant handed over the said music system to 4^th opposite party on 9-6-2012.  After some time, the 4^th opposite party informed that it is very difficult to getting repair of same since model is outdated and tried to influence him to purchase a new one.  Further the complainant received a letter from the regional customer care of 2^nd opposite party dt.27.6.2012 with an advise that they offer 25% of the discount on the new music system and that the required spare part to rectify the system of complainant may cause abnormal delay.  As the complainant strongly believes that the opposite parties 2 and 3 could not able to render their services after sale, the 1^st opposite party sold defective goods, he got issued a notice on 12-7-2012 to the opposite parties 1 to 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 received the same and got issued reply stating that there will be abnormal delay in getting necessary part and not rectified the mistake in the system. Hence, the complaint.

2.         After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 to 4.  The opposite parties 2 to 4 absent and consequently they remained exparte.  The 1^st opposite party filed its version denying the material averments of the complaint with regard to deficiency in service on their part.  The 1^st opposite party admitted the purchase of music system by complainant and further reiterated the contents of reply notice that there would be abnormal delay in getting the spare part and with regard to offering the discount to complainant for exchange of system and finally prays to dismiss the complaint.

3.         The complainant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 on his behalf.  The Authorized Signatory of 1^st opposite party filed chief affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B3 on its behalf.

4.         Both parties filed written arguments and perused the same.

5.         Now the points that stood for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not rectifying the defect in music system of complainant?

1. If so, to what relief.

Point No.1:

6.         The undisputed facts in this case are that the complainant has purchased the AIWA music system bearing Model No.BMZ – K7D in the year 2005 which was being manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  In this regard, the contention of complainant is that he purchased the same from Krishna Electronics, Vijayawada by spending Rs.50,000/-.  But the complainant has not produced any bill to prove the factum of purchasing music system.  He filed Ex.A1 warranty card which discloses the model number, serial number and date of purchase.  But it even does not contain the name of complainant.  However as the 1^st opposite party has not denied the factum of purchase of music system, the above aspects may not have consequence. 

7.         The main grievance of the complainant is that the said music system for last few years is getting repairs and on 9-6-2012 he handed over the same to 4^th opposite party for repairs which is authorized service center of 1^st opposite party under Ex.A2 job sheet.  Perusal of Ex.A2 job sheet discloses the name of complainant, model number and serial number of music system and the complaint is mentioned as “tape not working, CD not working”.  The contention of the complainant is that till today the 4^th opposite party has not repaired the said music system and as such there is a manufacturing defect and also deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  The complainant got issued Ex.A3 legal notice to the opposite parties, but he has not filed any postal acknowledgments regarding receipt of notices by opposite parties.  A careful perusal of Ex.A2 job sheet, the column with regard to warranty date is kept blank.  Further perusal of Ex.A1 warranty card reveals that the warranty to the music system for manufacturing defects is for one year from the date of original purchase.  In this case, the complainant purchased the music system in the year 2005 i.e. on 1-9-2005 and the warranty period will be expired on 1-9-2006.  But the 1^st opposite party has not taken any such plea in their version.  The opposite parties 2 to 4 remained absent.  Though the opposite parties has not taken plea with regard to the warranty, it is not safe to order return of amount or replacement of new system to complainant, in view of the terms and conditions mentioned in warranty card more particularly the condition that the warranty will be for one year from the date of original purchase.  Further the complainant has used the said system for 7 years and the coupons in the warranty card are also left blank.  As such there is no problem to the system within warranty period.

8.         In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 

Point No.2

9.         In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs. As per the complainant, the music system is with the 4^th opposite party. As such the 4^th opposite party is hereby directed to return the said system to complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order under proper acknowledgment, considering the letter addressed by 2^nd opposite party dt.27-6-2012 under Ex.A4 and A5/B2 and B3 on 25% discount on MRP on current Sony Music System, in exchange with the existing product, the complainant is also at liberty to approach the opposite parties for exchange his music system.

Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 24^th day of July, 2014.

PRESIDENT (FAC)                                                                                                 MEMBER

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the complainant: -None-                                            For the opposite party: -None-

Documents marked

On behalf of the complainant:               

Ex.A1                                     Original copy of service warranty. 

Ex.A2             09.06.2012    Photocopy of retail invoice/cash medmo/bill. 

Ex.A3             12.07.2012      Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.1

Ex.A4             17.07.2012    Copy of reply issued by the opposite party. 

Ex.A5             27.06.2012    Copy of letter issued by the OP to complainant.   

On behalf of the opposite party:

Ex.B1                                     Photocopy of general power of attorney. 

Ex.B2             27.06.2012    Photocopy of letter issued by the OP to complainant.  

Ex.B3             17.07.2012    Photocopy of reply issued by the opposite party. 

   PRESIDENT (FAC).