BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.367 of 2014

Date of Instt. 21.10.2014

Date of Decision :08.05.2015

Gaurav Sharma aged about 38 years son of Kailash Nath, R/o Circular Road, Kapurthala.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Sony India Pvt Ltd, Registered Office:- A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director/General Manager.

2. Sigma Marketing, 178 Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar through its Prop./Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Harish Puri Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Manoj Dhaimja Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 deals in manufacturing and sale of consumer products and one of such product is computer laptop. The registered office of opposite party is situated at A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. Opposite party No.2 is distributor/authorized service centre of Sony India in Jalandhar region. The complainant has purchased a Sony Vaio Flip Series Laptop bearing model No.SVF13NIASNS. Serial No.54665844 0000317 from authorized retailer of opposite party namely Digital World, situated at 137-138, Monica Tower, Milap Chowk, Jalandhar on 5.5.2014 for his personal use. The complainant has purchased this laptop for the total sale consideration of Rs.65,000/-. At the time of its purchase, it was told to the complainant that the laptop is under warranty for one year from the date of its purchase including accidental damage protection for one year. A warranty card was also issued to the complainant regarding the aforesaid product. Its worth being mention here that the complainant has spent Rs.65000/- in the purchase of this laptop, out of which Rs.20000/- was obtained by him as loan on interest from Capital Local Area Bank, Jalandhar and further Rs.30000/- was obtained by him on credit from his banker namely ICICI Bank, Kapurthala Branch against FDR. The complainant has also purchased extended warranty of two years on the representation of authorized representative of opposite party at the time of purchase of the laptop. The copy of said extended warranty is also attached. Ever since the complainant has purchased this laptop, it is giving him the problems one after the other. Apart from there being hardware failure, there are problems with regard to operating system in the laptop. The one of its major issue is that the laptop used to produce excessive heat even on normal use and some time it make it very difficult to keep hold the laptop. In its first main hardware failure, the laptop went completely dead that too just after one month of its purchase. It failed to start or to show any breath of sign. The complainant called the customer care number of opposite party 18001037799 and the service advisor told him to bring the laptop to some authorized service centre. Consequently, the complainant brought the laptop to authorized service centre of Sony India namely Sigma Marketing, 178 Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar on 9.6.2014 i.e opposite party No.2. There the laptop was got repaired but barely after one and half month of its repair, its again went down. Second time the laptop failed to start because of some issue with software (operating system). The laptop failed to reboot or to take any action. Even recovery/ troubleshoot etc failed to restart the laptop. The complainant again brought the laptop to authorized service centre i.e opposite party No.2. There the service advisor after checking the laptop told him that the operating system in the laptop is required to be reinstalled and for that purpose they have to brought disk containing windows from Delhi. They kept the laptop on 30.7.2014 and the complainant was issued job card bearing No.J41669406. The laptop was ultimately returned back to complainant after five days on 4.8.2014. However on same day while working on laptop, the complainant found that one of the USB port on the laptop is not working. The complainant called the customer care of opposite party and performed various activities on laptop as per instruction of service advisor including troubleshoot recovery option from assist button as the last option. However the troubleshoot recovery option gave the error to the effect that "Your PC need to be repaired. A required device is not connected or can not be assessed". The service advisor then told the complainant to bring the laptop to service centre with the advice that the windows is required to reinstall. The complainant then went back to the service centre i.e opposite party No.2, however to his utter surprise, they told the complainant that they installed some image copy of windows on his laptop. They further told him that they have not yet received the disk containing the windows to be installed on his laptop. However this fact was not told to him, when the complainant received the laptop from said service centre of opposite parties and the service centre kept the laptop for five days on the lame excuse that they have to get the disk from Delhi. All these facts caused great suspicion in the mind of complainant regarding the genuineness of service provided to him by the said service centre. At that time, the representative of opposite party No.2 also told the complainant that they will contract him whenever they will receive the disk containing windows to be installed in his laptop. But till date there is no such attempt from their side. Window8 operating system was pre-installed on the laptop and the complainant has already paid the price for this operating system which is included in the sale price of this laptop. Therefore, it was upon the opposite parties to provide him the product key and recovery image of windows for the laptop. Needless to mention that windows operating system is being manufactured and sold by Microsoft Company. The Microsoft is providing free update Window8.1' to Window8' users with certain additional features and qualities. However after the service of laptop by service centre of opposite party and by wrong installation of the windows in the laptop, the complainant is not able to update his windows to 8.1 version and without there being said update, he is not able to use the windows upto its full extent to which he has already paid for. Moreover without the update, the complainant is not able to use various apps provided by microsoft from its store. Even the apps are not loading from the microsoft store. This update was to be installed online through internet from microsoft site. But then there was failure of internet connectivity in the laptop. Without internet and audio output, the laptop is like body without soul. Few days after the complainant obtained the laptop from authorized service centre of opposite party on 4.8.2014, its started giving him the problems with regard to internet connectivity and audio output. Now the audio services and internet connectivity is completely unavailable in the laptop. The speaker sign in the bottom of the window is marked as cross and troubleshoot is giving the error "hardware changes might not have been detected". Likewise the network sign in the bottom of window is also marked as cross. It is not showing any Wifi network and even in PC setting of windows8 OS, there is no show of any Wifi option. The troubleshoot is giving the option that troubleshoot could not identify any problem. Even the complainant is not able to connect internet with the use of USB dongle or phone modem. Apart from that the laptop also failed to show any action to MS office, which is also a very important feature of laptop/computer. After the laptop started giving the aforesaid problems, the complainant contacted the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 and brought to their notice the aforesaid problems in the laptop to which they told him that have not yet received the disk containing windows to be installed on the laptop. They also told the complainant that they will contact him whenever they will receive the said disk. But still no such attempt on their part to resolve the issue in the laptop. After that the complainant again made call to their customer care No.18001037799 and told to service advisor all these facts, who again told the complainant to bring the laptop to their authorized service centre centre and service advisor also arranged a call from Sigma Marketing. Thereafter again the complainant approached their aforesaid authorized service centre on 25.8.2014 and brought to their notice the issues with the laptop. But it was again told to the complainant by them that they do not have the disk for installation in the laptop. They again postpone the matter on the lame excuse that they will contact the complainant whenever they will receive the disk. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to change his laptop with new one or to return its price. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite party No.2 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte. However, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written reply pleading that the complainant has not been given any extended warranty or accidental damage protection. The complainant has been provided the best services and the allegations are baseless. It is submitted that the repairs were carried out free of cost as per warranty. It is denied that any false representation was ever made. It is further denied that after sale services of the opposite parties are not upto the mark or that the product is substandard. It is submitted that the goods of the opposite party No.1 are sold all over the world and its products are of international standards. It is denied that there is any hardware problem with the laptop. It is also denied that there is any heating problem with the laptop. The complainant has only approached the opposite parties thrice and both times his grievances have been duly resolved. The following are the jobs conducted on the laptop:-

Repair History:-

Job No.J412152432 dated 9.6.2014, ASC: Sigma Marketing (Service) Symptom: No Power

Repair Action: RTC Batter re-fixed.

Delivered: 10.6.2014.

Job No.J41669406 dated 30.7.2014, ASC: Sigma Marketing (Service) Symptom: OS Problem

Repair Action: Recovery done.

Delivered: 4.8.2014.

Job No.J42081594 dated 12.9.2014, ASC: Sankalp Electronics Symptom: Windows Corrupt

Repair Action: RDVD awaited.

3. It is submitted that each time the laptop was brought for repairs, the same was repaired and was duly returned back without any further grievance. The job sheets with the signatures of the complainant are enclosed. Further, there was never any hardware failure. It is submitted that the USB failure, hardware or internet failure is an afterthought. The same was never reported during any visit of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant is misleading this Forum with respect to the installation of windows software. The complainant only had a trial version of windows installed in his laptop even at the time he was visiting the opposite parties for repair. The opposite parties installed the image in the laptop to put the laptop in good working condition for the complainant till such time the opposite parties obtained the DVD for installation of the windows for him. The opposite parties on their part informed the complainant that the laptop has been put in working condition and that as soon as the DVD of the windows would be received the complainant could get the same installed. The complainant is misleading this Forum. The opposite parties provided the complainant with best services in time and also did their best not to delay the delivery of the laptop due to delay in respect of the installation DVD. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C28 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.IPW1/1 to Ex.OPW1/4 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the Sony Laptop in question for Rs.65000/- on 5.5.2014 vide retail invoice Ex.C1 from Digital World, Jalandhar. According to the complainant, he has obtained extended warranty to two years. Ex.C3 is document regarding extended warranty. Although in its written reply, the opposite party no.1 has denied that any extended warranty was given but at the time of arguments learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 admitted that extended warranty was given to the complainant. According to the complainant, soon after purchase the laptop developed various defects and he approached the service centre of the company on three occasions but the problems in the laptop were not solved. On the other hand, the version of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant visited thrice to the service centre of the company and on two occasions the software problem in the laptop was rectified and on the 3rd occasion, the operating system was not installed and kept pending till receipt of DVD for installation of the window system. In para 6 of the written reply, opposite party has given repair history and regarding 3rd visit dated 12.9.2014 against the column of repair action-RDVD awaited is mentioned. Even in its written reply opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the complainant only had a trial version of windows installed in his laptop even at the time he was visiting the opposite parties for repair and the opposite parties installed the image in the laptop to put the laptop in good working condition for the complainant till such time the opposite parties obtained the DVD for installation of the windows for him. So in a way opposite party No.1 has admitted that windows were not installed by the service centre as DVD for installation of the same has not been received. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 contended that only trial version of the window is installed and permanent window system is required to be get installed by the customer himself. This version of the opposite party No.1 can not be accepted. Ex.C5 is leaflet or broucher regarding the laptop in question and against the column of features Intel Core TM i5 Processor Windows8 Single Language is mentioned. There is no document on record to show that the opposite party No.1 was to install only trial version or image window system. In case only trial version of window was to be installed then there was no need for opposite party No.1 to plead in the written reply that opposite parties installed the image in the laptop to put the laptop in good working condition for the complainant till such time, it obtained the DVD for installation of the window for him. So far on first two visits of the complainant are concerned, the service centre provided the necessary service to him. The first two service job sheets are on record and at the time of receipt of laptop from the service centre, he signed the service job sheets. So main grievance of the complainant is regarding operating system i.e installation of windows in the laptop which the opposite parties have not installed on the ground that DVD has not been received. The complainant has not led any reliable evidence to prove that there is any other defect in his laptop. However, if there is any defect in the laptop, the same is still under warranty or extended warranty period and opposite party No.1 is bound to rectify the same. Under the terms and conditions of the warranty in case of any defect, company is liable to be rectify the defect. It is only where there is any manufacturing defect in the product, replacement or refund of price is justified. In our opition, there is no reliable evidence on record from the side of the complainant to come to the conclusion that there is any manufacturing defect in the laptop in question.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 itself or through its service centre is directed to install the permanent window system in the laptop of the complainant without any further delay and further to rectify the defect, if any in his laptop free of cost. The complainant is also awarded Rs.5000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

08.05.2015 Member Member President