Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/390/2014

Ashish Doomra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Avinit Avasthi, Adv.

30 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	390 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	01.08.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	30.06.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Ashish Doomra son of Navdeep Doomra, resident of H.No.70-D, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, Punjab.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Sony India Private Limited, through Managing Director, Registered Office A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044

 

2]  Modern AKM Electronics Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory, SCO 126-127, First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

3]  M/s Prem Sons, SCO 59, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Avinit Avasthi, Counsel for the complainant.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Amit Arora, Counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3.

Opposite Party No.1 exparte.

 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case of the complainant, he purchased a Sonny Vaio Laptop bearing Model No.SVE14A25CNB IN5 on 17.5.2013 for Rs.48,500/- from Opposite Party No.3 having one year warranty (Ann.C-1). Since, the windows of the laptop was working at a slow speed and it used to automatically restart itself, the complainant taken it to Opposite Party NO.2 Service Centre, who repaired it and delivered back on 22.2.2014 (Ann.C-2).  The complainant also sought two years extended warranty on the said laptop on 20.5.2013 (Ann.C-3). After some time, the complainant further experience some problems in the working speed of the laptop and as such, it was again deposited with Opposite Party No.2 for repairs on 5.4.2014 (Ann.C-4). It is averred that since 5.4.2014 the laptop is in possession of Opposite Party No.2 and necessary repairs have not been done as per the satisfaction of the complainant despite the facts that the laptop is within warranty period.  Thus, a legal notice (Ann.C-5) was sent to the OPs, which was replied vide Ann.C-6 wherein the nature of problem in the laptop was admitted and it was also admitted that after performing necessary service, the LCD back and Bezel have been replaced and that the set is working satisfactorily.  However, when the complainant checked his laptop thoroughly, he was astonished to see that the laptop had not been repaired and the said part of the LCD back and Bazels had still not been replaced upto the satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant requested the Opposite Party No.2 to replace the repairable parts of the laptop within one week of the receipt of notice dated 1.7.2014 (Ann.C-7), but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2]       Opposite Party No.1 did not turn up despite service, hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.9.2014.

         OPs No.2 & 3 filed joint reply and admitted the sale, service and warranty of the laptop in question.  It is admitted that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 5.4.2014 complaining of “hinge fitting came off” problem in the laptop and on inspection, it was found that LCD black cover of the laptop was broken and the bezel of the laptop needed replacement to rectify the said defect. It is also submitted that the bezel component of the laptop was made available only by 9.6.2014 and accordingly, the laptop was repaired on 9.6.2014 and the complainant was called to come and collect the laptop, but the complainant refused to collect the laptop and demanded replacement of the laptop with new one, which cannot be done as the laptop has been repaired by replacing its necessary spare parts. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

        

5]       It is worth to mention that at the time of arguments, the ld.Counsel for the complainant submitted that the main grouse qua defect in the complaint has been redressed by the Opposite Parties during the pendency of the complaint and now the question left with the Forum to decide is qua the compensation claimed by the complainant due to the harassment suffered by him at the hands of the Opposite Parties.  For such, there is need to look into the factual matrix of the complaint.   

 

6]       The ld.Counsel for the complainant submitted that Sonny Vaio Laptop bearing Model No.SVE14A25CNB IN5 was purchased on 17.5.2013 for Rs.48,500/- from the Opposite Party No.3, which started giving trouble and on complaint was rectified by the Service Centre-Opposite Party NO.2 when HDD Hard Disk was replaced with a new HDD set and the external dent on right and left side of the palm rest was repaired and few scratches were also repaired. After the said repair, it again started giving trouble in working speed along with loose hinge fittings and again was submitted for repair with Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1 and till the filing of the complaint that was not repaired upto the satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant alleged that he also paid for the two years extended warranty despite having one year warranty given by the manufacturer.  Further submitted that the legal notice was also issued to the Opposite Parties to rectify the defects in the laptop purchased by the complainant which still lies with the Opposite Party Service Centre. 

 

7]       The OPs claimed that the delay in delivery of the laptop occurred due to the indifferent attitude of the complainant, who despite having intimated did not collect his laptop after its repair from the service centre. 

 

8]       Refuting the above contentions, the ld.Counsel for the complainant submitted that on being intimated the complainant went to the service centre of the OPs and on checking, it was found that still certain parts were not changed by the Service Centre and the said Laptop was not repaired upto the satisfaction of the complainant.  Further submitted that the complainant also issued one letter dated 01.07.2014 in this regard to the Opposite Parties which they never replied and continued to detain the laptop without its repair.

 

9]       The record before us reveals that the contention of the complainant is right that he has suffered both mentally and physically at the hands of the OPs, who failed to rectify the defect within the reasonable time frame. The record reveals that the laptop purchased by the complainant was earlier repaired on 22.2.2014 (Ann.C-2) and it was again submitted for repairs on 5.4.2014. There is no denial of the fact that on being intimated after the second repair, the complainant went to service centre of the OPs to collect the same and the moment, it was not found upto the mark as certain parts needs replacement were not replaced by the OPs, So, his refusal to collect the same was genuine one.  Thereafter, the complainant issued letter dated 1.7.2014 requesting Opposite Party No.2 to replace the repairable parts of the laptop within one week and there is no record to show the action taken by the OPs to replace the repairable parts. It is not expected from a prudent man to take the delivery of the article submitted for repair, which still needs rectification/repair.  Although, it is admitted and declared that the said laptop has now been repaired upto the satisfaction of the complainant, but the sufferance undergone by the complainant cannot be ignored, who could not use the laptop for the period it remained with the OPs & purpose to use the same remain defeated for long.  Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is hereby adjudged.   

 

10]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

        

a]  To return the laptop of the complainant in proper working condition.

 

b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

C]  To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to refund Rs.48,500/- being the cost of laptop as well as to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of  Rs.7,000/-. 

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

30.06.2015          

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

                                                                                                                   

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.390 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 30th day of June, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member