BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 11th day of August 2015
Filed on : 16-03-2015
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.181/2015
Between
Sudheesh Rajendran, : Complainant
Puthan Veettil, Kuzhumam, (Party-in-person)
Machel P.O., Malayinkeezhu,
Thiruvananthapuram- 695 571.
And
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
Rep. By Ms. Meena Bose,
(Customer Relations)
A-31, Mohan Co-operative
Industrial Estate,
Mathura road,
New Delhi-110 044.
- Madonna Care Center,
rep. By Manager,
Sony Authorized service
centre, Allens cube,
Door No. 31/346-D,
Paradise road, Janatha Jn,
Vyttila, Kerala, Cochin-682 019.
- Sheeja's IT Mall Pvt. Ltd.,
rep. By its Manager,
St. Antony's Building,
Ernakulam, Ernakulam Jn,
S.A. Road, Kadavanthra P.O.,
Cochin – 682 020.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
The complainant Shri. Sudheesh Rajendran purchased a Sony Vaia Laptop on 13-03-2014 from the 3rd opposite party M/s. Sheeja’s IT Mall Pvt. Ltd. for his use. The complainant used the same for using the software by name AutoCAD. For the 1st 2 months the lap top worked well Thereafter it started slowing down and ultimately started to hang. The lap top was therefore given for service with the 2nd opposite party M/s. Madona Care Centre. It was repaired and serviced and was returned on 08-10-2014. However in spite of formatting the system for 3 times, the lap top started working defectively. The complainant had intimated the matter to the 1st opposite party M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. As per the response from the 1st opposite party the lap top was surrendered on 7th June 2015 before the service center. After giving the lap top to the service center there was no response on the part of the opposite party and therefore an email was sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. But the 1st opposite party had kept mum with regard to the complaint of the complainant. The 1st opposite party had instructed the service center to replace the hard disk and to provide the very same lap top of the complainant. However that option was not done. Yet another mail was sent to the 1st opposite party on 07-03-2015 and it was respondent to by an auto generated mail without any positive response. The complainant therefore seeks to the return of the purchase amount from the opposite parties and to get a compensation of Rs. 2, 00,000/- . The complainant was living on the return received by his personal use of his laptop for auto card works. Hence the complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties 1 to 3. The authorized agent of the opposite party appeared and sought for settlement of the issues. The case was posted to recording settlement on 15-07-2015. Thereafter the opposite party did not appear at all before this Forum either to report settlement of the issues or to file version. The complainant filed a proof affidavit and marked Exbts. A1 to A9 documents on his side. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence in spite of service of notice on all of them.
3. We have gone through the documents produced by the complainant and heard him. The questions for consideration are,
i. Whether the complainant had suffered deficient service at the
hands of the opposite parties as alleged?
ii. If so what is the quantum of compensation to be awarded?
iii. reliefs and costs.
4. Issue Nos. i&ii. Exbt. A1 is a cash sale invoice issued by the opposite party M/s. Sheejas IT Mall Pvt. Ltd., Kadavanthra, Kochi. It shows that the complainant had purchased a Sony Vaia Laptop with 2 years extended warranty for a price of Rs. 37,500/-. Exbt. A2 is the retail invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party for having done the service of the laptop on 08-10-2014 and delivered on 14-10-2014. Exbt A3 is the retail invoice for having received the laptop on 12-12-2014 and showing that the laptop was delivered after repairs on 18-12-2014. Exbt. A4 is another retail invoice is12sued by the 2nd opposite party for having received the laptop for repairs on the very next day that is on 19-12-2014 and it was given after repairs on 23-12-2014. Exbt. A5 is yet another retail invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party on 05-01-2015 for having received the same lap top for repairs and it was given back to the complainant after repairs on 07-01-2015. After receiving the laptop on 07-01-2015 it had to be again given back to the service center of the 2nd opposite party on the very next day after a month on 07-02-2015 and the laptop is not seen to be returned by the complainant so far after repairs. Exbt. A6 is the job card showing that the 2nd opposite party had received the laptop on 07-02-2015 for servicing the same. On going through service details done by the opposite parties it is seen that the laptop had to be repaired by the 2nd opposite party, the authorized service center of the 1st opposite party, recurrently without permitting the complainant to enjoy the facilities of the product purchased. The opposite party was intimated by the complainant by e-mail on 5th February 2015 showing the very bad experiences received by him after purchasing the laptop from the 3rd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The complainant could not use the laptop for the purpose to which it was purchased. The 1st opposite party, the customer relations manager in the corporate office of the 1st opposite party had responded to the email without touching on the core of the issues. But by sending a mail on consolation as seen from Exbt. A8. Exbt. A9 is an email sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 7th March 2015 intimating the 1st opposite party regarding deficiency of service in detail by attaching the job sheet which is marked in this case with Exbt. A6. However that letter also did not evoke any response from the opposite party as Exbt. A9 reply to the e-mail was only a formal one in nature making false promises in usual manner.
5. On going through Exbt. A1 to A9 we find that the services of the opposite parties 1 to 3 were far below the standard quality expected from the manufacturer dealer and service point. The service personnel took much of the time of the complainant by keeping the laptop under the guise of repairs. The 3rd opposite party being the dealer was not responsive in a way to respond to the complaints aired by the complainant, for having sold a substandard article to the complainant. The 1st opposite party the manufacturer is liable for having provided with a defective article to the complainant for a huge price. Therefore we find that the complainant through Exbt. A1 to A9 has proved his case of deficiency of service and the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in having not responded to the complainant promptly. We find issue No. 1 in favour of the complainant.
6. Having found deficiency in service and instance of unfair trade practice in the transaction, we find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation in addition to the refund of the entire amount paid by him on defectively manufactured Laptop. Considering the nature and circumstances of this case we find that the complainant is entitled to get 50% of the amount of the value of the product by way of compensation which shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of pronouncement of this order.
7. In the result, the complaint stands allowed by passing the following orders in favour of the complainant
i. The opposite parties 1 and 3 the manufacturer and the dealer jointly and severally be liable to make refund of the price of the Laptop which is fixed as Rs. 37,500/- as seen from Exbt. A1 tax invoice.
ii. the complainant is entitled to receive a compensation of Rs. 18,750/- being the half amount of purchase value with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of this order till the date of realization. It shall be paid by the 1st and 3rd opposite parties jointly and severally
- the 2nd opposite party is directed to make a payment of Rs. 10,000/- for the delayed delivery of the laptop to the complainant during various occasions when it was given for repairing and for servicing .
iv. Refund and compensation mentioned as above shall be paid by the respective opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the laptop is still within the custody of the 2nd opposite party, we direct the 2nd opposite party to deliver it back to the 3rd opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order at their costs and expenses.
The above said order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 11th day of August 2015
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, Member,
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits:
Ext. A1 : Copy of tax in voice dt. 13-03-2014
A2 : Copy of Retail invoice dt. 14-10-2014
A3 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 18-12-2014
A4 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 23-12-2014
A5 : “ “ dt. 07-01-2015
A6 : Copy of service job sheet.
Dt. 07-02-2015
A7 : Copy of Gmail dt. 05-02-2015
A8 : Copy of Gmail dt. 06-02-2015
A9 : Copy of letter dt. 07-03-2015
Opposite party’s Exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
