BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 15/2014 filed on 15/01/2014
Dated: 30..09..2014
Complainant:
Jithesh Gopan, S/o V. Gopakumar, 'Ashtapathi’, Police Quarters Road, Nemom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 020.
(By Adv. Narayan. R)
Opposite parties:
1. Sony India (P) Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. Represented by its Managing Director.
2. Sony Centre, R.L Properties & Investments # 606, 80 Feet Road, 4th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034. Represented by its Manager.
3. Madonna Sales and Service Authorised Sony Service Centre, TC.11/767(1), Plamoodu Jn., Pattom Palace – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, - 695 004. Represented by its Manager.
(Opp. Parties 1 to 3 by Adv. J.S. Sabu)
This C.C having been heard on 18..09..2014, the Forum on 30..09..2014 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, the complainant is a Computer Engineer by profession, that being attracted by the representations and advertisements made by opposite parties regarding the touch screen note book launched by the 1st opposite party, the Sony India (P) Ltd., the complainant decided to purchase one such system, that complainant together with a friend went to Bangalore and purchased a SVF 14A 15SN Sony Note book for a total price of Rs. 62,990/- from the 2nd opposite party, Sony Centre, that within a couple of days of purchase itself hazy semi opaque grid lines began to appear on the screen of the note book together with a strange noise and overheating, that complainant immediately took the system to 3rd opposite party Madonna Sales and Service, Authorised Sony Service Centre, Pattom on 04/11/2013, (that is, within 4 days of purchase), that service technician said that he would keep the system under watch and asked the complainant to come the next day, that service technician noted that there are scratches on the body in this brand new note book, that when the complainant went the next day he was informed by the service technician of the 3rd opposite party that on checking the system he found no fault with it, so the complainant immediately switched on the system and showed the service technician the exact problem appearing on the screen of the note book, that the service technician told the complainant that it seemed to be a defect and asked the complainant to come after a couple of days, that time and again he went to 3rd opposite party but had to return frustrated and disappointed, that during the last week of November 2013 the complainant was informed by the 3rd opposite party that the system is having inherent defects and that they cannot repair the same but could only offer replacement of the same, that complainant agreed to the same and asked opposite party to give a replacement, that complainant was asked to come sometime during the 1st week of December for getting a fresh system, that thereafter on 06/12/2013 complainant was informed by 3rd opposite party that the new system is available and asked him to come and take delivery, that on the same day complainant went to the office of the 3rd opposite party and inspected the new system, that on inspection complainant saw the exact same problem of hazy semi opaque grid lines on screen together with the unnatural noise, that complainant refused to take delivery of such a system and demanded an explanation from the opposite parties, that around mid December 2013, the complainant was informed by the 3rd opposite party that all models manufactured by the 1st opposite party in the series SVF 14A 15 SN shows the hazy opaque grid lines and that it is not a manufacturing defect, that complainant insisted that he be given the refund of the amount he had spent on the system, that 3rd opposite party assured to do the needful, that there has been no response from the 3rd opposite party and the system is still with them, that the action of the opposite parties is nothing but deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 62,990/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till refund along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost.
2. On being served, opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance. Sony India (P) Ltd Bangalore sent a copy of the letter dated 20/03/2014 addressed to Mr. Jithesh Gopan to this Forum. No version filed by opposite parties 1 to 3. Hence opposite parties set exparte.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
(ii) Whether complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P3.
4. Points (i) & (ii): There is no dispute on the point that complainant had purchased a SVF 14A 15 SN Sony note book manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party. Ext.P1 is the copy of the tax invoice dated 30 October 2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of Jithesh Gopan. As per Ext. P1 complainant had purchased SVF 14S 15 SN Sony note book for Rs. 62,990/- from the 2nd opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of the warranty card. Warranty is for one year from the date of purchase. The very case of the complainant is that within a couple of days of purchase itself hazy semi opaque grid lines began to appear on the screen of the note book together with a strange noise and overheating and complainant immediately took the system to the 3rd opposite party, the authorised Service Centre of the 1st opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram on 04/11/2013. Ext.P3 is the copy of the Service Job Sheet issued by the 3rd opposite party. A perusal of Ext.P3 reveals 3rd opposite party had received model No. SVF 14A 15SV Sony brand from the complainant on 04/11/2013 vide job No. J32193538. It is mentioned in Ext.P3 service job sheet that customer complaint as display noise, over heating. It has been contended by the complainant that he was surprised when the service technician noted that there are scratches on body in this brand new note book. When complainant went to 3rd opposite party he was informed by the service technician that on checking the system he had found no fault with it. So the complainant immediately switched on the system and showed the service technician the exact problem appearing on the screen of the note book. The service technician told the complainant that it seemed to be a defect and asked the complainant to come after a couple of days. Though complainant approached 3rd opposite party on several occasions he had to return frustrated and disappointed. During the last week of November 2013, complainant was informed by 3rd opposite party that the system is having inherent defects and that they cannot repair the same but could only offer a replacement of the same. It has further averred in the complaint that complainant agreed to the same proposal of the 3rd opposite party and asked them to give a replacement. As directed by the 3rd opposite party complainant went to the office of 3rd opposite party and 3rd opposite party informed him that new system is available. On inspection of the new system complainant saw the same problem of hazy semi opaque grid lines on screen together with unnatural noise. Thus complainant refused to take delivery of such a system. Still the note book in dispute is with 3rd opposite party. There is no response from the opposite parties nor opposite parties filed version denying the allegation levelled against them by the complainant. It is difficult to fathom as to why opposite party did not come to contest this case. The evidence produced by the complainant is unrebutted on record. With the above said evidence the case of the complainant is clear, there is no hinge or loop to hang a doubt on. It is further to be noted that complainant is not in the position to invoke Section 13(c) of the Consumer Protection Act since the system in dispute is with 3rd opposite party. It is settled position that manufacturing defect can be proved only by leading expert opinion. 2nd opposite party had already sent a copy of the letter dated 20/03/2014 addressed to Mr. Jithesh Gopan to this Forum by post. The said letter is on the record. A perusal of the said letter reads as under:
“As a gesture towards customer support and restore the faith on sony product, we had also offered to exchange your model with new upgrade model by paying the MRP difference or we will refund the purchase amount to settle the issue amicable. This was communicated to you by the undersigned on 14/03/2014 and 17/03/2014”.
From the said letter sent to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party, it is crystal clear that the said model SVF 14A 15 SNB supplied to the complainant is having irreparable problems.
Though complainant agreed to the said proposal, opposite parties failed to perform the same. It is pertinent to point out that 3rd opposite party had received the said note book for repair from the complainant on 04/11/2013. Now almost 10 months have elapsed. Complainant purchased the system on representation and advertisements made by opposite parties regarding the touch screen note book launched by 1st opposite party. Complainant purchased the said note book for a total price of Rs. 62,990/-. Complainant could not use the said note book so far. The note book is still under warranty. The action of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. We cannot afford to overlook the mental agony suffered by the complainant. In view of the evidence available on record we find the system is having inherent defects, complainant insisted for refund of the amount he had spent on the system. Taking the overall situation we deem that it will be expedient and justice will be well met if opposite parties are directed to refund of the amount complainant had spent on the system with reasonable interest which we fix @ 8% per annum along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund an amount of Rs. 62,990/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of purchase till refund along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which Rs.62,990/- will carry interest @ 12% per annum.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of September 2014.
Sd/- G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/- R. SATHI : MEMBER
Ad. Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 15/2014
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : N I L
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of the tax invoice dated 30/10/2013 issued by 2nd opposite party in the name of complainant.
P2 : Copy of the warranty card
P3 : Copy of the service job sheet issued by the 3rd opposite party
III. Opposite parties’ witness : N I L
IV. Opposite parties’ documents : N I L
Sd/- PRESIDENT
Ad.
