IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.48 OF 2014
Geeta Rani Panda,
R/O. Sonapali Chowk, P.O.: Dhankauda,
Via : Remed-768006, P.S.: Dhanupali,
District: Sambalpur, Odisha. ……. Complainant.
Vrs.
Sony India Private Limited,
A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
Sai Infotech, Opp.Budharaja High School,
Dist: Sambalpur-768004, Odisha,
Balaji Service,
Christianpaa, G.M.College road,
Sambalpur-768001, Odisha. ……. Opp.Party.
DATE OF ORDER : 07.07.2015
For Copmplainant: Shri Prem Prakash Panigrahi, Advocate.
For O.P.No .1 : Shri N.K.Sarangi, Shri N.K.Sribas,
M.Mohanty, M.Pansari and
M.Pandey, Advocates.
For O.P.No.2 : Shri B.M.Guru, Miss A.Chhabria,
Shri S.Pattnaik and Mrs. I. Sahu, Advocates.
For O.P.No.3 : None.
P R E S E N T :
SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT
A N D
MRS S.TRIPATHY, MEMBER
A N D
SHRI K.D.DASH, MEMBER.
: O R D E R :
SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: - Complainant Geeta Rani Panda has filed this case against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service. Case of the complainant in brief is that she was sold a defective Laptop by
O.P.No.2, product being manufactured by O.P.No.1. O.P. No.3 is the authorized service center of the manufacturer (O.P.no.1). Complainant is the mother and her son is reading in the National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. Her son had purchased a Laptop Computer Sony Vaio from O.P.No.2 on dt.27.10.2012 at Sambalpur at a price of Rs.50,500/-.
2. As per her son the Laptop was malfunctioning off and on from the date of purchase and finally on 2nd week of August, 2013 stopped functioning. After the first year of study, the son of the complainant returned to Sambalpur and on dt.12.6.2014 took the Laptop to the O.P.No.2, who in turn advised the son of the complainant to approach O.P.No.3, the authorized repairer of O.P.No.1. The Laptop was deposited with O.P.No.3 on dt.14.6.2014, who made an endorsement “display body crack”. O.P.No.3 assured that it it will bne repaired within 10 days, but unfortunately, it could not be repaired. So, the son of the complainant returned to Guwahati without Laptop in the month of July, 2014.
3. On dt.2.9.2014 the O.P.no.3 asked the complainant to take back the Laptop after paying Rs.13,974/- towards repairing charges. Complainant paid the money as demanded by O.P.No.3. She asked the O.P.No.3 for demonstration as to how the Laptop was functioning after repair, but to her utter surprice the O.P.No.3 could not start the Laptop system. Again O.P.No.3 demanded another Rs.6,000/- to solve all the problems found with the Laptop.
4. According to the complainant the model of the Laptop was having inherent manufacturing defect and several friends of her son had also purchased this model and they are also facing problem with their Laptops. To substantiate her claim she cited that the manufacturer has stopped manufacturing of the model “ SVE15128CNBIN5” finding that there is problem with the Laptop system.
5. Complainant alleges that the Laptop was being used by her son for search and research on the internet, drafting convenience, storage of e-books, research papers and multifunctional job worked out in a computer system from which her has been deprived of due to the failure of functioning of the Laptop. Hence complainant has filed the case praying to direct the O.Ps to replace the defective Laptop with a defect free one or in the alternative refund the price of Rs50,500/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till payment. It is further prayed for refund of Rs.13,974/- received by O.P.No.3, Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
6. O.P.No.2 filed his Vakalatnama on 24.10.2014, and subsequently has filed his version on dt.13.1.2015. There is no allegation against this O.P. by the complainant. In its version, it says that he has sold the laptop to the complainant’s son and in his presence he has opened the seal of the manufacturer. The buyer was satisfied and accepted the laptop used it for one and half years then has complained regarding some defect. He goes on to say that Sony Company has stopped manufacturing all its model of lap tops and has sold its right to Microsoft.
7. O.P.No.1 has filed version for all the O.Ps through one Meena Bose, who is the authorized persons of O.P.No.1. It is stated in the version that the brand name of “Sony” holds a reputed position in the field of electronics and products are sold through a network of authorized dealers and services are provided by network of authorized service centers across India. The O.P.No.1 agreed that the complainant purchased a Sony VAIO Laptop bearing model No.SVE15128SNB on 27.10.2012. The product carried warranty period of one year.
8. The product was first produced before the service center at Assam on dt.15.5.2014 and the service center charged a sum of Rs.1,124/- for servicing and was s paid the son of the complainant. The
complainant’s son again deposited the Laptop before O.P.No.3 on 14.6.2014,but refused to pay any service charges. Again complainant approached O.P.no.3 on 20.8.2014 to repair the “Display, bezel and LCD cover broken” and this time was willing to pay the cost involving for it. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,974/- to O.P.no.3 and took the Laptop being satisfied.
9. O.P.No.1 received a notice from this Forum and became aware of the dispute and on dt.13.11.2014 sent notice to the complainant to refund the amount of Rs.13,974/-. This response from O.P.No.1 was ignored by the complainant.
10. The O.P.No.1 further goes to say that there was no manufacturing defect with the Laptop and the Laptop function for a period of 1 and ½ years which substantiates the assertion of the O.P.No.1 that the Laptop is free from defect. O.P.No.1 has cited some excerpts s of some case laws, but not filed any such citation before the Forum. On the basis of the above submission, O.P.No.1 prays that the complainant against the O.Ps is liable to be dismissed.
10. Documents filed by complainant are Xerox copies of:
(1) Retail Invoiced dt.27.10.2012-Annexure-1 (2) Identity card issued to the son of the complainant by National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam-Annexure-2 (3) Service Job Sheet dated.14.6.2014- Annexure-3.
Documents filed by O.P.No.1 are Xerox copies of
Resolution authorizing Meena Bose-Annexuire-1 (2) Warranty Card and wave pad-Annexure-2 (3) Letter dt.13.11.2014 offering to return money taken by O.P.No.(Annexure-3.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the complaint petition, written
versions and documents filed by the parties and placed on record.
12. Advocates for the respective parties advanced their argument and on the basis of the complaint petition and written version, a single question is involved in this case i.e. whether the Laptop was properly repaired by O.PNo.3 and if not, whether O.P.No.1 is liable to replace the defective Laptop or price thereof.
13. Both sides have only argued the case and they have not supplied any citation.
14. On the basis of the written statement of O.P.No.1, it clearly reflects that they are hiding their inability to repair the laptop. O.P.No.2 has clearly mentioned in its version in para-5 that the Sony company i.e. O.P.No.1 has stopped manufacturing of the alleged model of Laptop and sold the right to Microsoft. This clearly goes to show that the model of Laptop has already been withdrawn from the market and the O.P.No.1 has stopped manufacturing of the same.
15. This clearly indicates that the Laptop had some inherent manufacturing defect which could njot be repaired by O.P.No.3. This non- repair is further supported by the letter of offer of O.P.No.1 to comp,ainant to return the money taken by O.P.No.3.
16. The complainant is left in lurch and is holding a dead baby. It cannot be revived. The manufacturing company does not bother about the aftrer sales service or informed the customer regarding the withdrawal of the product from the market and how they are going to be serviced if any defect arises out of the Laptop.
17. The letter of refund of money taken by O.P.no.3 goes to show that the defect could not be repaired. The purchaser was to fend for itself. This is a clear sign of manufacturing defect or non-availability of parts as the product has been withdrawn from the market. The manufacturer may cite
any reason for the , but it must repair withdrawal of the product, but it must repair what it has sold for at least three years which is the standard business norm. Otherwise the purchasers are put to loss for no fault on their part. The purchasers are attracted by the strong advertisement depicting the various merits of the product and suddenly the product vanished from the market. The consumer has nowhere to go but to take shelter under this Forum under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, the Forum is duty bound to listen and lesson its grievances.
18. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, we allow the case against the manufacturer (O.P.No.1) and O.P.No.1 is directed to refund the price of Rs.50,500/-(Rupees Fifty thousand five hundred) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% (Nine per cent) from dt.24.6.2014, the date of failure on the part of O.P.No.3 to repair the defective Laptop till the date of actual payment and take back the defective Laptop from the complainant. O.P.No.1 is further directed to refund the price of Rs,13,974/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand nine hundred seventy-four), the price taken by O.P.No.3, which O.P.No.1 had already agreed to refund as per their letter and also pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) towards cost of the proceeding. The O.P. is to comply this order within
30 days from the date of order.
SHRI A.P.MUND
PRESIDNET.
MRS S.TRIPATHY, MEMBER.I agree.
SHRI K.D.DASH, MEMBER. I agree.
Dictated and corrected by me.
PRESIDENT.
