Haryana

Karnal

323/2014

Ajay Kumar S/o Virender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                Complaint No. 323 of 2014

                                                                Date of instt.: 8.12.2014

                                                                 Date of decision:30 .03.2016

 

Ajay Kumar son of Virender Singh resident of village Ganwari Jat, post Sareli tehsil Narnaul district Mohinder Garh .

.                                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1.Sony India Pvt.Ltd. A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura road, New Delhi.

 

2.F1 Info Solution & Services Pvt.Ltd. Sony authorized service center, H.No.493-L, Model Town, near SBI Training Center, Karnal.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.            

                    Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.Ajay Kumar complainant in person.

                    Sh.Sanjay Singla Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

ORDER:     

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one  Sony Vaio Lapton Model  SVF15213SNB and  Serial No.0006377  on  16.08.2013.  He gave the laptop to Opposite Party No.2 for repairs on 7.8.2014. The Opposite Party no.2 returned the laptop to him after repairs on 12.8.2014, but after one day, he faced many problems  in the laptop. So, on 14.8.2014, he again approached the Opposite Party no.2 and asked about his warranty. He was told that warranty would expire on the date of purchase.  However, on 16.8.2014, he came to know that wrong information was provided to him, due to which he could not use the services of Sony authorized service centre during the warranty period. Therefore, he complained to Sony India and Sony Service Centre, in charge.  On that, Mr.Dheeraj told him that he could give his laptop to authorized service centre and the same would be repaired without any charges. Accordingly, on 16.10.2014, he gave the laptop for repairs to Opposite Party no.2, who tried to solve the problems and kept the laptop for 35 days, but the problems could not be solved. Thereafter, the Opposite Party no.2 took the laptop to Soni Head office of Sony India Pvt.Ltd.,  but they were also unable to solve the problems.   Then Sony Area In charge, Mr. Dheeraj  told that approval to higher management for refund of the price was sent and he should wait for some days.  After 4/5 days, he was  told that higher management  decided to give 60% refund for the laptop, but he did not agree to that, as he wanted 100% refund so that he could purchase new laptop. Thus, due to act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, he was mentally harassed.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been admitted that the complainant had purchased one Sony Vaio Lapton Model  SVF15213SNB and Serial No.0006377,  on  16.08.2013.  It has been submitted  that warranty for one year was provided for the said laptop from the date of original purchase. The complainant after using the laptop without any defect for a period of almost 12 months approached the authorized service center  of  Opposite Party No.1 for the first time on 7.8.2014 alleging the issue of  “key hard to press”, but after inspection the service officials of Opposite Party no.2 cleaned the dust from the key board and  replaced the plam rest.  The laptop was collected by the complainant after necessary rectification on 12.8.2014.  He was advised not to keep the  laptop near dust. The complainant again visited the Opposite Party no.2 on 16.10.2014 raising issue of  “ Hard Disk Video strucking and USB port not working etc.” therefore, necessary rectification was carried out  and the laptop was collected by the complainant in perfect working condition on 9.12.2014.  The complainant  had sent E-mails dated 10.10.2014, 20.11.2014 and 26.11.2014 causing  harassment to the  Opposite Party by leveling false allegations,  The Opposite Party No. submitted reply, vide letter dated 26.11.2014. However, as a good will gesture, the Opposite Party no.1 in order to settle the matter amicably  with the complainant, offered 60% of the purchase value of the subject laptop which was refused by the complainant blindly ignoring the fact that the laptop  already  used by him for a considerable  period of 12 months.  The complainant had again approached the authorized service center of Opposite Party no.1 on 11.12.2014, but on thorough inspection, the laptop was found to be in perfect condition and the same was returned to him on the same day. Thereafter, the complainant continued to use the laptop without any defect. The complainant has no cause of action and the present complaint has been filed  by him in order to harass the Opposite Parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 have been tendered.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Meena Bose Ex.OW/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 have been tendered.

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the complainant and   learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

 

6.                 From the pleadings and evidence on record, it is established that the complainant purchased one Sony Vaio Lapton Model   SVF15213SNB and Serial No.0006377  on  16.08.2013.  After using the laptop for more than eleven months, he approached the Opposite Partyno.2 on 7.8.2014 for the first time with the problems of  “ alt key noise, speaker, brightness nor working, touch pad issue wifi not connecting battery backup”.  The Opposite Party no.2 carried out the necessary repairs and returned the laptop to the complainant in perfect condition on 12.8.2014. As per the allegations of the complainant, he again approached the Opposite Party no.2 on 16.8.2014 as the laptop was not working properly, but he was told that warranty  had expired. However, from the job sheets Ex.C3  and  Ex.C6, it is established that after expiry of one year warranty, the laptop of the complainant was repaired on 16.10.2014, though the amount of Rs.19011/- was payable, yet no amount was charged by the Opposite Parties for repair of the laptop. Admittedly, the Opposite Parties as a goodwill gesture offered 60%  refund  to the complainant, but he refused to accept the same.

 

7.                The complainant had used the laptop for a period of more than 11 months without any problem which shows that there was no manufacturing defect in the same. Even, the complainant has led no cogent evidence, which may establish that there was any manufacturing defect in the laptop. Thus, the question arises whether there was any deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties. There is no document on the file  to show that the complaiannt had approached the Opposite Party no.2 on 16.8.2014 with some problem in his laptop. On the other hand, from Ex.C6, it is clear that on the request of the complaiannt, the laptop was repaired by the Opposite Party no.2 on 16.10.2014 , though the warranty period had already expired on 15.8.2014. Therefore, it cannot be said  by any stretch of imagination that there was any deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any  merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:30.03.2016

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Ajay Kumar complainant in person.

                    Sh.Sanjay Singla Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 29.03.2016.

Announced
dated:29.03.2016

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.Ajay Kumar complainant in person.

                    Sh.Sanjay Singla Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:30.03.2016

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.