BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 420 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.100 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II TIRUPATI
Between
N.B.K.Dasamantha Rao W/o Suryajagan Mohan Rao
Residing at Tirupathi Railway Station Cloak Room
Tirupathi Town and urban Mandal, Chittoor Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its
Managing Director, office at A-31 Mohan
Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road
New Delhi-110 044
2. Rayalaseema Agencies Sony Exclusive
Rep.by its Proprietor, No.50, Nethaji Road
Tirupathi Town and Urban Mandal
Chittoor Dist. Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Sri Manne Haribabu
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri A.V.D.Narasimha Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Served
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER
MONDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
This appeal is filed against the order passed by the District forum, Tirupathi in C.C.No.100 of 2006 whereby the District Forum has dismissed his complaint holding that the respondents have supplied the music system as per the specifications assigned by the appellant.
The brief facts leading to filing the appeal are that the appellant has purchased a Sony Music System of Model No.MHC-W2-80D Sl.No.3354721 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent no.2 on 7.2.2006 and on the same day after the demonstration the music system was handed over to the appellant. At the time of demonstration and for 10 days thereafter all the five speakers functioned well. Later, the centre speaker of the music system ceased to function. The appellant brought the problem to the notice of the respondentno.2 who had deputed a technician to look into the matter. The technician could not rectify the defect in the music system inspite of attempting to repair the speaker for three times and expressed his opinion that the defect could not be rectified. The appellant requested for several times the second respondent to get the problem rectified, but to no avail. The appellant stated to have purchased the music system on finance from Bajaj Finance Limited and he had to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month towards the EMI for a period of eight months. The appellant sought for replacement of the music system with a new music system or in the alternative for the refund of the price of the music system. The appellant got issued notice dated 25.7.2006 to the respondent no.1 in this regard. The respondent no.1 gave reply on 11.8.2006 whereto the appellant had got issued a rejoinder to the effect that in the notice it was mentioned as Sony TV instead of music system.
The respondent no.1 resisted the claim by filing counter and contending that the appellant after satisfying himself in regard to the specifications of the set of the music system and the contents of the instruction manual, purchased the music system. The staff of the respondent no.1 installed the set at the residence of the appellant and conducted demonstration for proper understanding of the product to the appellant on three occasions, on 10.2.2006, 17.2.2006 and 23.8.2006. The appellant had no complaint at the time of installation of the set at his residence. The appellant has not lodged any complaint with the respondent no.1. The set has no manufacturing defect. The issue raised by the appellant was in regard to the functioning of the five speakers vis-à-vis the functioning of the deck. The 5.1 channel output refers to CD/DVD section of the set and the software used thereof. The set would produce 5.1 channel output only on DVD/CD/VCD provided the recording of software is of 5.1 channel. Tape deck section will not produce output in all the speakers if 5.1 channel recording in the cassette is not possible and the same was explained to the appellant. It was also clearly mentioned in the operational instruction manual that for the output of five speakers the consumer has to play the DVD wherein the recording of the software should be of 5.1 channel. The respondent no.1 has got issued reply dated 11.8.2006 to the notice that was got issued by the appellant clarifying that the set in question was a music system and not a television set. It was also informed to the appellant the centre speaker will only work in case of 5.1 channel output and it will not work on tape section. Thereafter a reply was also given to the letter sent by the appellant.
The respondent no.2 remained exparte.
The appellant has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A6.
On behalf of the respondents Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
The appellant and the respondent no.1 filed their written arguments.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any misappreciation of the facts or law?
The appellant had purchased the music system manufactured by the respondent no.1 and sold by the respondent no.2 on 7.2.2006 where for the respondent no.2 has provided one year warranty in terms of warranty terms and conditions. On 10.2.2006 the technical staff of the respondent no.1 demonstrated the functioning of the music system at the resident of the appellant and the appellant had no problem whatsoever with the functioning of the any of the speakers of the music system at the time of its purchase or at the time of demonstration. It is the contention of the respondent no.1 that at the time of demonstration of the music system the technician informed the appellant that the system will produce 5.1 channel output in DVD/CD/VCD model. It is also the version of the respondent no.1 that the operating instruction manual furnished along with the system spells out the details of the software to be recorded in DVD/CD/VCD for producing 5.1 channel output. The appellant had submitted that the respondent no.2 sold a defective and used music system to him and the centre speaker could not get functioned inspite of an attempt to repair it as many as three times by the technician deputed by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has not denied the deputation of the technician by them to rectify the defect in the centre speaker.
The technician of the respondent no.1 visited the appellant on three occasions to clarify his doubts in regard to 5.1 channel output and Dolby System. The appellant states that the technician visited his residence to rectify the defect in the center speaker of the system. The notice dated 25.7.2006 issued on behalf of the appellant would show that the technician of the respondent no.2 inspite of visiting three times could not rectify the defect in the centre speaker. The respondent no.2, interestingly, has not chosen to contest the claim. The reply dated 11.8.2006 issued by the respondent no.1 has in its para 4 the description of the visit and purpose of the visit paid by the technician of the respondent no.1. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
(b) The Authorized Persons of opposite party no.1 duly installed the said set at the residence of the complainant to his fullest satisfaction. Demonstration and proper understanding of the product was explained to the complainant on 3 occasions i.e., on 10.2.2006, 17.2.2006 and 23.8.2006 respectively. There was no complaint by the complainant at the time of the purchase and installation of the said set at his residence. The authorized persons of opposite party no.1 had supplied the said set in prefect working conditions and to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant.
(c) Admittedly the Answering opposite party did not receive any complaint from the complainant till dated, and the stated fact is sufficient to prove that the set in question was working to its perfection for the said time and as such was/is not having any manufacturing defect.
(d) The issue raised by the complainant, was with the function of the 5 speakers while playing the Tape Deck section. The 5.1 channel output as mentioned by the customer refers to CD/DVD section of the set and the software been used. The set will produce 5.1 channel output only when the complainant is playing DVD/CD/VCD and also the recording of the software should be 5.1 channel. In that case all the speakers will function. Tape Deck section will not produce output in all the speakers since 5.1 channel recording in the cassette is not possible. The same was duly explained to the complainant. It is also clearly mentioned in operational instruction manual.
The aforesaid aspect has to be considered in the background of the contents of the notice dated 25.7.2006 issued on behalf of the appellant wherein it was stated that the appellant purchased the music system which functioned properly for about 10 days from the date of its purchase and later one of the speakers ceased to function compelling the appellant to complain of the problem whereon the respondent no.2 deputed a technician to attend the problem which he is stated to have done on three occasions ultimately ended in his failure to rectify the defect in the speaker.
The respondent no.1 states that it had sent its technical staff for demonstration of the functioning of the music system whereas the complainant contends that it is the technician of the respondent no.2 who attended on the problem posed by the centre speaker of the music system. The cumulative effect of these circumstances is that the centre speaker remained nonfunctional for a certain period and thereafter it is not known what happened to the centre speaker and its status of functioning. However, the question of manufacturing defect in any form is not established by the appellant to fasten liability on the respondent no.1 to replace the music system or refund the cost of the music system. Therefore, insofar as role of the respondent no.1 is concerned, there is no iota of evidence on record brought in by the appellant to establish deficiency in service or manufacturing defect in the music system that was manufactured by the respondent no.1 and sold by the respondent no.2 to the appellant.
The respondent no.2 has not given any reply to the notice dated 25.7.2006 issued to him and the respondent no.1. The failure of the respondent no.2 in refuting the charges leveled against them in the legal notice issued on behalf of the appellant may not itself be a circumstance to arrive at a conclusion as to the deficiency of service on the part of the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 has issued warranty card, Ex.A6 wherein the entries against the model no., sl.no., and date of purchase have been scored off and re-written by applying while paint which gives rise to any amount of doubt in regard to the manipulation of the entries particularly in the light of the contention of the appellant that the respondent no.2 had sold a defective and used music system to him though the contention of the appellant could not be established as he had the opportunity of looking into the system at the time of demonstration at his residence conducted by the technicians of the respondent no.1. The inaction on the part of the appellant does not mean that the respondent no.2 has not committed any deficiency in service by issuing a warranty card with manipulated entries. The contents of the legal notice in regard to the deputation of a technician by the respondent no.2 to look into the problem posed by the centre speaker of the music system gains significance in the circumstances that the respondent no.2 had not chosen to deny the contention of the appellant as also the entries on the cover page of the warranty card issued by the respondent no.2.
As aforesaid, there could not be any manufacturing defect in the centre speaker of the music system purchased by the appellant. The respondent no.2 by his conduct and attitude had subjected the appellant to inconvenience by not taking further steps and leaving the appellant to his fate even not taking pains in explaining the appellant the mode of functioning of the 5.1 channel speakers. The appellant or for that matter any customer of the respondent no.2 has the right to be informed of the functioning of any product much less the music system sold by the respondent no.2. In the circumstances, we feel the appellant entitled to the repair of the centre speaker of the music system and the respondent no.2 is liable to rectify the problem in the centre speaker of the music system.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by setting aside the order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the District Forum. Consequently the complaint is allowed. The respondent no.2 directed to rectify the problem in the centre speaker of the music system. Time for compliance four weeks. The complaint against the respondent no.1 is dismissed without costs.
Sd/-
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.22.03.2010
KMK*
