O R D E R

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:  On 31.8.06 the complainant had purchased a Movie Camera Model No.DCR-TRV-285 E for ` 18,000 with its accessories from 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  The company offered 3-year warranty for the camera and its accessories.  On 12/08 the battery charger of the camera become complaint and the complainant approached the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party for repairing the charger.  Then the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party directed the complainant to approach the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party for the repairing and the complainant entrusted the charger to the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party.  After examining the charger 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party informed the complainant that the charger damaged and it could not use.  Further he informed that the charger has no warranty because it cannot replace.  2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party persuaded the complainant to purchase a new charger by spending ` 3,000 and he received an amount of ` 500 as advance for that.  After that the complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party then they informed that the charger will replace only on the request of the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party never demanded them to replace of the charger.  Then the complainant came to 2^nd opposite party but the 2^nd opposite party will not ready to replace the charger or to return the advance amount received by her.  The complainant had sent notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party stating that he will take legal action against them for non-replacing the charger.  The complainant had used the camera for taking sample photos of sarees and readymades for making orders from purchasing other countries.  Now the camera is could not use due to the deficiency in service of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  From which she had sustained mental agony, financial loss, and other inconveniences.  The 2^nd opposite party had sent a reply to the complainant by admitting all the facts of this complaint.  The complainant is entitled to get the financial expenses sustained to her due to the irresponsible act of the opposite parties and the advance amount received by the 2^nd opposite party along with compensation for the mental agony and other expenses from 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  Hence she filed this complaint for getting an order for directing these opposite parties for paying these relieves to the complainant.  The complainant prays for granting the relief.

                   3. The 1^st opposite party has filed a version stating the following contentions:  This opposite party has admitted the purchase of camera by the complainant from them.  After sale service is done by the companies authorised service centres as per the terms and conditions.  After receiving the complaint from the complainant they have forwarded it to the Madonna Care Centre at Thiruvalla, authorised service centre of sony company.  They didn’t done any unfair trade practice or there is no deficiency in service from their side.  Hence they prayed for do the needful.

                   4. The 2^nd opposite party has filed a version stating the following contentions:  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant has purchased this camera for his business purpose hence the complainant is not a consumer.  The company had provided warranty only to DCR-TRV-285 E Handy Cam.  It is stated in the warranty conditions.  They are not selling accessories but only spare parts, even though as per the request of the complainant they made an order for charger from the company after receiving ` 500 as advance from the complainant.  As per the order the company had sent the charger and they have received it.  It was informed to the complainant and she was agreed to collect it.  But on 15.2.09 the complainant sent a letter demanding to repair the charger as per the warranty and demanded to return the advance amount received from her.  This opposite party had sent a reply to the complainant stating that if she didn’t want the charger they will ready to return the advance received from her.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from them.  Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                   5. The addl. 3^rd opposite party has filed a version raising the following contentions:  The purchase of the movie camera and the alleged defect of the charger were not known to this opposite parties.  The complainant has never approached them for this complaint.  As such there is no deficiency in service from them and they are not liable to the complainant.  The complainant is not a consumer.  Moreover the warranty does not cover the accessories.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relieves as sought for in the complaint from this opposite party.  Hence this opposite party also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          6. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following points are raised for consideration:

(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint?

(3) Relief and Costs?

          7. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the authorised representative of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 marked from the side of the complainant.  There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of opposite parties.  After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.

          8. The complainant’s case is that she had purchased a handy cam movie from the 1^st opposite party for an amount of ` 18,000.  The charger of the camera become defective within warranty period then the 1^st opposite party directed the complainant to approach 2^nd opposite party for curing the defect.  After examination 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the charger is damaged and it could not repair.  And also informed that the warranty does not cover the charger hence they cannot replace as per warranty.  By the misrepresentation of 2^nd opposite party the complainant paid the advance for getting the charger.  After that the complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party then she came to know that if the 2^nd opposite party demanded to replace the charger to the third opposite party then only they will replace the charger.  But the 2^nd opposite party did not demand to replace the charger or repaired it till this date.  This act of opposite parties amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting the relief as prayed for in the complaint.

          9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant’s authorised representative adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 were marked.  Ext.A1 is the bill-dated 31.8.06 for the purchase of the camera.  Ext. A2 is the warranty card of the camera issued by 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the receipt-dated 31.12.08 issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the copy of notice-dated 14.2.09 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.  Ext.A5 is the reply-dated 4.3.09 issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A6 is the cover of camera, which put the warranty seal.  Ext.A7 is the copy of page 11^th of the operation manual of handy camera.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties counsel has cross-examined PW1.

          10. 1^st opposite party contended that they are only the dealers and after sale service is done by the companies through their authorised service centres.  This opposite party was forwarded the complainant’s complaint to the 2^nd opposite party the authorised service centre of 3^rd opposite party.  There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of this opposite party.

          11. The 2^nd opposite party contended that the warranty is provided only for the Handy cam not accessories.  As per the request of the complainant they have received an advance amount of ` 500 from the complainant and made order for the charger from the company.  As such the charger was received by the 2^nd opposite party from the company and it was informed to the complainant.  But she did not come for collecting the charger and she had sent a letter demanding to repair the charger and to return the advance amount received from her.  The 2^nd opposite party informed their willingness to return the advance amount to the complainant.

          12. The 3^rd opposite party contended that they have no knowledge about the purchase of the movie camera and the defects of its charger.  The complainant never approached this opposite parties for this purpose.  Moreover, the warranty does not cover the accessories.

          13. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of this opposite parties.

          14. On going through the evidences in this case, there is no dispute regarding the purchase of Sony Handy Camera from the 1^st opposite party by the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party has raised a contention that the complainant has purchased this camera for commercial purpose hence this complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.  Even a product is purchased for commercial purpose if it is become defective within the warranty period the manufacturing company is liable to replace the product as per the latest settled position in this subject matter.  Hence this contention of the opposite parties is not maintainable.

          15. On a perusal of Ext.A2 service warranty, the 5^th condition in the terms and conditions of the warranty is as follows: “the warranty does not extent to cabinets, knobs, labels or any accessories defined in the operating instruction manual supplied with this Sony product”.  It means warranty does not cover the charger.  On the basis of the warranty seal put on the Ext.A6 showing 3-year warranty, the complainant demanded to replace the charger.  Ext.A2 says that the authorised service centres will repair the product free of charger subject to terms and conditions mentioned in Ext.A2.  As per the terms and conditions of the warranty the complainant is not entitled to replace or get repaired the charger without paying the charge.  The 3^rd opposite party also contended that, “warranty does not cover accessories”.  The charger of the handy camera is an accessory and it does not covered under the warranty.  The 2^nd opposite party admitted the receipt of ` 500 as advance for the charger from the complainant as per Ext.A3.  Through Ext.A5 reply notice the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant of their willingness to refund the advance amount received by them or the delivery of the charger on payment of balance amount.  But the complainant did not turned up as per their request.  As the 2^nd opposite party had already expressed their willingness to return the advance amount to the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any interest to the advance amount or cost from 2^nd opposite party.  For proving the traveling and other expenses the complainant has not produced any evidence, hence that prayer cannot be allowed.  For the mental agony and other inconveniences sustained to the complainant, this opposite parties are not liable to compensate the same, as they have not committed any deficiency in service.   In the circumstances, we could not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties.  However, the complainant is entitled to receive the advance amount.  Hence this complaint can be allowed in part.

          16. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, thereby the 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay the amount of ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) the amount received as advance from the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay this amount to the complainant within one week from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum will follow for the said amount from today till the whole payment.  No cost allowed.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of October, 2010.   

                                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                                                      C. Lathika Bhai,

                                                                                           (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                  :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                 :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Varghese. C. Philipkutty

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Photocopy of the bill dated 31.8.06 for ` 20,000 issued by

             the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant. 

A2     :  Photocopy of the warranty card. 

A3     :  Photocopy of the receipt dated 31.12.08 for ` 500 issued by the 2^nd 

             opposite party to the complainant. 

A4     :  Photocopy of notice dated 14.2.09 issued by the complainant to the 

             opposite parties. 

A5     :  Photocopy of the reply dated 28.2.09 issued by the 2^nd opposite 

             party to the complainant. 

A6     :  Photocopy of cover of camera which put the warranty seal. 

A7     :  Photocopy of page 11^th of the operation manual of handy camera.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                     Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Mrs. Susan Philip (Propritrix), M/s. Sruthy Textiles,

                      M.C. Road, Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand, Thiruvalla – 689 101.                               (2) M/s. Quilon Radio Service, Makoottathil Building,

            Vandimala, Temple Jn., M.C. Road, Chengannoor.

                  (3) M/s. Madona Care Centre (Sony Authorised Service Centre),

             26/170, Ramanchira, M.C. Road, Thiruvalla – 689 101.

       (4) The Manager, M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Muscat Towers,

                       Kadavanthara, Ernakulam Dist., Cochin.

                  (5) The Stock File.