This case is coming for final hearing on 27.02.2015 in the presence of Sri Mohammed Jabir Complainant appear in person and of Sri B.K.Naidu Advocate for Opposite Party No.2 and 1^st opposite party called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on

behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the Complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party is manufacturer of electronic items under trade mark of Sony brand and the 1^st opposite party is one of the authorized service centre.  The Complainant purchased a Sony Valo Laptop No.SVE1513CYNB IN5 Sl.No.26135 from M/s Aasaan Retail Pvt. Ltd., Chennai for his business purpose.  The opposite parties also issued invoice bearing No.Royal Images.In/136830 dated 30.06.2013 with a warranty for one year for a sum of Rs.27,990/-.  The Complainant stated that the said instrument used to give troubles in functioning and causing hurdle to the Complainant day to day.  Subsequently, that instrument completely stopped functioning and then he approached the 1^st opposite party and gave complaint and requested the 1^st opposite party to rectify the defects.  The 1^st opposite party opined that the battery of laptop did not detecting and accordingly they acknowledged the receipt of instrument vide service Job Sheet No.J31683080 dated 11.09.2013 and directed the Complainant to come and collect the said instrument on 13.09.2013.  Accordingly, he went to 1^st opposite party and collected the laptop on 14.09.2013 and on verification it was observed that the said laptop body was damaged and immediately, the Complainant informed the said fact to the 1^st opposite party by way of complaint No.15664719 on 14.09.2013 and requested to replace the damaged body of said instrument, for which the 1^st opposite party informed that presently there is no stock of body frame of instrument and will replace the same within two or three days. 

2.       The Complainant stated that the said damage caused at the hands of 1^st opposite party while the instrument was fixing after rectification of defect.  But the 1^st opposite party intentionally suppressed the said fact and handed over the same to the Complainant on 14.09.2013.  The Complainant also sent reminder on 19.09.2013 and 25.09.2013 to the opposite parties for replacement of damaged body and laptop and the same were received by them, but neither respond nor replace the same, more over, used to give evasive replies and the officials of the 1^st opposite party threatened the Complainant with dire consequences.  Because of the acts of the opposite parties, Complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially.  Thus, the opposite parties committed gross deficiency of service towards the Complainant.  Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite parties;

a)      to replace the new laptop in the place of damaged instrument of Rs.27,990/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase till the date of payment.

b)      to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.5,000/-.

3.       On the otherhand, the 1^st opposite party called absent and set exparte.  On behalf of 2^nd opposite party Mrs. Meenabose filed her counter being an authorized person to 2^nd opposite party and denied all the allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded that the 2^nd opposite party is engaged in the business of distribution and marketing of various electronic items under brand name of Sony and it holds reputation in the field of electronics.  The Complainant purchased Sony Valo laptop bearing No.SVE1513CYNB IN5 Sl.No.26135 on 30.06.2013 and 2^nd opposite party provides limited warranty on its products and liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and it can not be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of warranty.  The terms and conditions of warranty provided by the opposite parties clearly states that “Sony India Pvt. Ltd., warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects for a period of one year from the time of its original purchase  This non-transferable warranty is only for you, the first end user.  If during this period of warranty the product proves to be defective due to improper material of workmanship, Sony service Centres/authorized service centres will repair the product free of charge subject to the terms and conditions mentioned below”. Thus, it is clear that the 2^nd opposite party is liable to provide free of cost repair on the product only during the warranty period, but not when the defect has risen due to an external cause. That too the warranty is provided on the product and not the guarantee.  Therefore, the question of replacing the product on free of cost and refund of entire amount on the same does not arise.  The opposite party pleaded that after using laptop admittedly for more than three months, the Complainant approached the 1^st opposite party regarding the alleged defects on 11.09.2013 and battery was replaced by the 1^st opposite party, subsequently, on 14.09.2013 the Complainant approached the 1^st opposite party once again alleging that the laptop had been damaged by the 1^st opposite party during the repair and the Complainant was requested to deposit the laptop repeatedly and the same was deposited on 20.09.2013.  The 1^st opposite party showed the Complainant that the damage had not occurred during the repairs since they only replaced the battery and did not carry out any other repair in the laptop which could damage it as alleged.  The Complainant also failed to annex any report of an independent expert.  In Sabeena Cycle Emporium Chennakhaada Vs. Thajes Ravi M.R.Pancha Villa Vedar Ezkhone P.O., 1992(I) CPJ 97 Kerala State Commission held that “where the Complainant alleges defects in the goods, the Forum is bound to determine this fact on the basis of clear evidence by way of expert opinion”.

In another case S.P.Bharthwal Vs Maruthi Udyog Limited and another   II (2003) CPJ 2981 held that “the Complainant having failed to point out any manufacturing defect in the laptop leave alone adducing any expert opinion to substantiate the allegations made in the instant complaint, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed”.

          In another case Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Vs. B.C.Thakurdesai and another II(1993) CPJ 225 National Commission held that “if there is a manufacturing defect that part can be replaced then, it will be very prejudicial to the interests of manufacturer, if he asked to replace the old machinery without sufficient cause”.

          In another case Maruthi Udyog Limited Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another 2006(4) SCC, 644 wherein it held that “vehicle beyond the terms of warranty was not justified”.  

          In another matter C.N.Anantharam Vs. Fiat India Ltd., & others (2011)I SCC 460 wherein, it upheld that “when there is no major inherent manufacturing defect and the problem complained of has been removed manufacturing company or agent is not under the compulsion to replace the same”. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief and it is very clear that the opposite parties have always admitted to take care of all the Complainant and has never been deficient in the services provided to the Complaints, hence there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by opposite parties, as such the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.       At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to A6.  On the other hand, the opposite parties filed their counter and evidence affidavit, but no documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties. The Complainant filed its written arguments.  Heard the Complainant who reiterated his version.  The counsel of the opposite parties represented that consider the counter and evidence affidavit, hence treated it heard for opposite parties.

5.       Ex.A1 is the invoice/cash bill bearing No.Royal Images.In/136830 shows that the Complainant purchased Sony Valo Laptop for an amount of Rs.27,990/-  on 30.06.2013.  Ex.A2 is the warranty wherein it was mentioned that valid up to July 2014. Ex.A3 is the service job sheet issued by the 1^st opposite party, wherein it was mentioned that the customer complaint “battery not detected dated 11.09.2013.  Ex.A4 is the letter issued by the Complainant regarding the battery of damaged laptop. Ex.A5 is the letter issued by the Complainant to 2^nd opposite party on 19.09.2013 mentioning his repeated reminders to the opposite parties and one Mr. Sohail stated that he will solve the problem by 6.00p.m, but there was no positive action, hence he attached his invoice job card and photo to Ex.A5.  Ex.A6 is the another letter issued by the Complainant to 1^st opposite party referring the complaint numbers and requested to consider the guarantee of laptop details dated 25.09.2013.

6.       The opposite parties admitted about the purchase of laptop and also admitted about Ex.A3 i.e., job sheet issued by them, but their contention is that the 1^st opposite party rectifying the defects of the Complainant’s laptop and handed over it on 14.09.2013 after rectification of the problem of the laptop but the Complainant found that the body of the laptop as damaged and immediately, informed the same to the 1^st opposite party by way of complaint 15664719 on the same day in Ex.A5 also shows that immediately after 4 days of handing over the laptop the complainant consulted 2^nd opposite party and also regarding his previous complaint on 14.09.2013 and also to take necessary steps, failing which, he will approach appropriate Forum.  The total plea of the opposite parties is that as they rectified the problem as per the terms and conditions, thus the matter ends and pleaded that there is no expert opinion filed by the Complainant to point out that there is manufacturing defect in the laptop.  The opposite parties contended that the damage of the laptop was not occurred during the repairs since, they only replace the battery and did not carryout any other repair in the laptop.  The opposite parties in their counter as well as in evidence affidavit mentioned about the terms and conditions with annexure which are not marked by the Forum, but the same was filed by the Complainant and was marked as Ex.A2. 

7.       Immediately, after three months of the purchase, there is problem in the laptop and the Complainant approached the opposite parties is an admitted fact and handed over laptop to the 1^st opposite party to rectify the defect and after three days, the Complainant collected the laptop and immediately, he informed about the damage in the body of the laptop by way of complaint No.15664719 and also made several correspondences through mail as well as postal correspondences to both the opposite parties, but there was neither denial nor acceptance by the opposite parties.  The correspondences made by the Complainant immediately after handed over the laptop is itself a clear evidence that there is some damage in the body of the laptop.  As per the version of the Complainant also, the body of the laptop was damaged at the hands of 1^st opposite party while fixing the instrument after rectification of the defect.  The Complainant’s relief is either to replace the laptop with new one or to refund the amount.  But as per the versions of the complaint and evidence affidavit, 1^st opposite party rectified the defect of battery, but the body of the laptop is damaged at the time of repair, but not mentioned anywhere that the working condition of the laptop is not well.  Hence, we are of the view, that working condition of laptop is good and it is with the complainant only.  Hence, the Complainant can claim replacement of body frame only.  It is true that the 2^nd opposite party is a manufacturing company and as per the versions of the complainant also there is only problem regarding the frame of the instrument.  Hence, as there is no problem in working condition of the laptop, the 2^nd opposite party is not liable.

8.       Even after several correspondences made by the complainant, there is no positive response from the 1^st opposite party regarding the replacement of the frame of the instrument which clearly shows deficiency of service on its part.  Hence, the 1^st opposite party is liable to replace the frame of the body of the laptop within 30 days.

9.       The 1^st opposite party failed to contest the matter to prove that the laptop was not damaged in its hands, which clearly shows deficiency in service, hence the 1^st opposite party has to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant besides costs.

10.     In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the 1^st opposite party to replace the damaged body frame of the laptop within 30 days and also to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.  The complaint against 2^nd opposite party is dismissed. 

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 9^th day of March, 2015.

    Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

Member                                                                 President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I 

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

            NIL      

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                                  President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//