CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.377/2013
SH. GAGAN SOPORI
S/O SH. ARUN SHIVPURI,
R/O 67, DDA, SECTOR-6, POCKET-I,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,
A-31 MOHAN CO-OPERATING INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110044
- M/S INDIA SONY FLAGSHIP STORE,
UNIQUE INFO WAYS PVT LTD.,
G-2 ASHOK BHAWAN, 93 NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 16.12.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
In brief the case of the complainant is that on 20.10.2012, he purchased a Sony Vaio-E-Series (SVE14A15FN/B) Black laptop for Rs.54,800/- from OP-2. When complainant operated the system, it had following manufacturing defect:-
- DVD slot not placed properly
- Left side of the flap loosely fitted at the left hinge
- Right side speaker was found bent
- LCD of the laptop was not fitted properly
It is further stated that after knowing the defect, complainant made a complaint to OP-2 and the engineer present at site inspected the laptop thoroughly and took necessary photograph and advised that the product had a manufacturing defect and directed complainant to contact the service centres who are authorized to replace the laptop. Complainant visited the authorized Sony Service Centre “Challenger Computer Ltd.” D-1/5, Jail Road, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18 for replacing the laptop. The said authorized service centre issued a Service Job Sheet bearing No.363 dated 11.11.2012 and demanded service charge of Rs.5,000/- for rectifying the said defect. The said laptop had manufacturing defect and was under the warranty period so it was the duty of OP to replace the product or cure the defect immediately. Complainant made a complaint to OP-1 but OP-1 in reply through email informed that out of the four defects as mentioned above, three will be rectified by replacement however defect no.3 is beyond the warranty cover and shall be rectified on chargeable basis only.
It is further stated that OP-2 assured complainant that the said product will be replaced as the laptop had manufacturing defect and only authorized service centre can replace the product as there is no provision for replacement at the outlet. It is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of OP as it is the duty of OP to check and ensure that the product is without any defect.
It is further stated that complainant purchased the laptop on 20.10.2012 whereas on using the product on scrutiny, it was found that the said product has lastly been operated and closed on 19.10.2012 at 10:40:03 PM. The date and time function is inbuilt and cannot be managed or altered. So it is clear that the product is used or is second hand and complainant paid the charges of a fresh laptop believing the version of OP. It is prayed that OPs be directed to replace the defective/second hand laptop with a fresh and also to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.
OPs filed combined reply stating that OP-1 is a company and OP-2 is the authorized dealer of OP-1. OPs took the plea that complainant had purchased a Sony Vaio laptop on 20.10.2010 from OP-2 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications by OP-2 and after satisfying himself with the condition of the laptop.
It is further stated that OP-1 provides a warranty of one year on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. The relevant terms of warranty provided by OP-1 to the complainant are as follows:-
“Clause(8):- This warranty shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening, ingress of water, fire and acts of God, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control and/or any damage caused due to the tempering of the product by an unauthorized agent.”
It is further stated that the said complaint attracts the Rule of Caveat Emptor. According to this principle, the buyer must take care of his own interest while purchasing the goods. He/she must examine the goods thoroughly and see the goods he/she buys are suitable for the purpose for which he/she want them. It is buyer’s duty to select the goods of his/her requirements.
It is further stated that complainant has not annexed any report of an independent expert with regard to any alleged defect in the said unit.
It is further stated that complainant had lodged the first complaint on 16.11.2012 i.e. almost after one month from the date of its purchase hence it is not possible that the complainant had never noticed the physical condition of the said laptop for almost one month. The said laptop was badly mishandled and damaged by complainant and due to which free of cost repair was refused. This fact was communicated by OPs to complainant via email dated 24.12.2012.
In rejoinder complainant has submitted that OPs have not placed any material on record which could suggest that the laptop was mishandled by complainant. When complaint was made to OP-2 the engineer who had inspected the laptop and taken the pictures had accepted that the laptop is having manufacturing defects and advised the complainant to approach to authorized service centre. The laptop opened by the authorized service centre of OP-1 engineers only. It is denied that first complaint was lodged on 16.11.12, in fact the first complaint was lodged on 23.10.12 to OP-2 and the complaint registered at the service centre was made on 11.11.12 and not on 16.11.12.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and carefully perused the record.
OP is relying mainly on Rule of Caveat Emptor. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for OP that it was complainant’s sole responsibility to check and examine the physical and electrical condition before taking delivery of the goods purchased. And in any case any imperfection was found it was to be reported then and there only. It is significant to note that Rule of Caveat Emptor is not applicable in case of dispute between the parties under Consumer Protection Act. The theory of buyer beware is not applicable.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for OPs that in fact laptop was badly mishandled and damaged by the complainant. It is further submitted that when the laptop was taken by the complainant there was no defect in the same that is why the matter was not reported by the complainant for almost one month and after one month the matter was reported. It is submitted that in fact during this period the laptop was badly mishandled and damaged by complainant.
We are not convinced with the submission of Ld. Counsel of OP. It is significant to note that complainant has send an email to OP on 20.12.13. In that email it was specifically stated that the laptop was purchased on 20.10.12 from OP-2 and while operating the system of OP, complainant noticed following defects:-
- DVD slot not placed properly
- Left side of the flap loosely fitted at the left hinge
- Right side speaker was found bent
- LCD of the laptop was not fitted properly
It is further stated in the email that 21st October was Sunday and therefore the complainant contacted OP-2 on 23.10.12 and met one Mr. Ajeet Singh who introduced him to the Head of Outlet and inspected the laptop and confirmed that device has manufacturing defect and directed him to contact service centre who is authorized to replace the laptop. It is not out of place to mention that Mr Ajeet Singh also informed Mr. Vinay and Mr. Ashish about the defect who are senior engineers of the company and were also of the opinion that machine will be replaced by the authorized service centre. This email was replied by OP on 24.12.12. It is nowhere stated in this reply that complainant has not met OP-2 on 23.10.12 or has not met the officials whose names are mentioned in the email dated 20.12.12. So far as defects in the laptop were concerned, it was stated “upon inspection of the unit by our engineer, the Optical Disc Drive noticed as making noise and required replacement covering under warranty however the dent present on the palmreest is beyond the Warranty Cover and shall be replaced on chargeable basis only. “.
In the entire reply filed by OPs, it is nowhere stated that complainant has not visited OP-2 on 23.10.12 and has not pointed about the defects in the laptop. It is further significant to note that complainant in para-10 of his complaint has specifically stated that he has purchased the laptop on 20.10.12. On using the product on scrutiny, it was found that the said product has lastly been operated and closed on 19.10.2012 at 10:40:03 PM. The date and time function is inbuilt and cannot be managed or altered. So it is clear that the product is second hand and complainant paid the charges of a fresh laptop believing the version of OP.
It is nowhere denied in the reply by OP that the laptop was not used on the date and time stated in para-10 of the complaint. The laptop was purchased on 20.12.12 whereas it was found to have been used on 19.10.12 meaning thereby that the used laptop was sold to the complainant.
Obviously the laptop was defective when the same was sold. It should have been replaced by the OP-1 when the same was brought to his notice. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Complainant is entitled for a refund of Rs.54,800/- within one month of this order and complainant will return the laptop to OP-1 within the same period. In case the amount is not paid within one month then complainant is entitled for an interest @ 9% p.a. till amount is realized. Complainant is further entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
