In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.279/2009
1) Khaitan & Co., Advocates, a partner ship firm
Having its office at “Emerald House”
1B, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata-1. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
2) Sony Service Centre
64, Aurobindo Sarani, Kolkata-5.
3) M/s Meridian Compu Services,
369, Block-K, New Alipore, Kolkata-53, P.S. New Alipore. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member
Order No. 29 Dated 24/01/2013.
Smt. S. Basu, Member.
In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a registered partnership firm and pursued the profession of advocates, solicitors, notaries, patents and trademark attorneys. The law firm is not a business organization, and the lawyers of the firm are engaged in group practice and only to earn their livelihood through such firm and o.p. no.1 is a manufacturer of, computer laptops under the brand name of ‘Sony Vaio’. O.p. no.2 is one of the official service centre of o.p. no.1 and deals with the repair and servicing of the laptops manufactured by o.p. no.1 under the said brand name ‘Sony Vaio’. O.p. no.3 is one of the authorized distributors of o.p. no.1’s ‘Sony Vaio’ laptops in and around Kolkata.
On or about 22.8.08 complainant had purchased a Sony Vaio laptop being Model No.Sony VGNCR343N1B and Serial No.7003269-D from o.p. no.3 for Rs.46,40/-. The said laptop contained manufacturer’s warranty of 12 months from the date of the purchase. It is pertinent to mention that the said laptop was used solely for the professional purpose of one of the lawyers of the firm and the said laptop was never used for any commercial purpose or for resale.
Within the said warranty period, on or about 7.4.09 a multi coloured large spot appeared on the lower right hand corner of the LCD screen of the said laptop. Immediately on the same day, without delay, the complainant herein sent its representative, Mr. Malaya Ranjan Goswami, to the office of o.p. no.2 being the official service centre of o.p. no.1 to rectify the said problem. Warranty period of 12 months at the time of the purchase of the said laptop was referred to by o.ps. as Limited Warranty and Service Conditions. O.p. no.1 is under a duty and obligation to repair or replace the defect in materials without charging any technical labour free and repair parts cost.
On 7.4.09 when the representative of complainant visited the office of o.p. no.2, the said representative was informed that under clause 8 of the said warranty, no repair or replacement could take place without cost. Despite repeated requests by complainant’s representative, o.p. no.2 refused to give its contentions in writing and even through the complainant purchased a new LCD screen. As per complainant the said stand of o.p. no.2 was in blatant violation and non-compliance of Sony’s obligation under the warranty and in particular aforesaid clause (2) thereof, and it is clearly an attempt to coerce the complainant into purchasing a new LCD screen.
Complainant thereafter contacted o.p. no.3, who assured the complainant that the defect in the said laptop would be repaired / replaced in terms of the guarantee clause set out above and asked the complainant to visit another service centre of o.p. no.1 situated at Hazra Road, Kolkata. However, when complainant’s representative visited the said service centre, the chief engineer at the said service centre refused to replace / repair the defect.
Thereafter, complainant sent a notice dt.18.4.09 calling upon the o.p. no.1 to repair and/or replace the defect in the said laptop. On 6.5.09 complainant received a letter dt.1.5.09 sent by advocate of o.p. no.1 whereby o.p. no.1 denied its liability to repair and/or replace the defect in terms of the said warranty and demanded a sum of Rs.12,000/- to repair the defect in the said laptop. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.1 had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. nos.2 and 3 did not contest the case by filing w/v. and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. nos.2 and 3.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and it is observed by this Forum that admittedly complainant purchased a Sony Vaio laptop from o.p. no.3, where o.p. no.1 is manufacturer and the said laptop contained manufacturer’s warranty of 1`2 months from the date of purchase and it is also not controverted by o.ps. that on or about 7.4.09 a multi coloured large spot appeared on the lower right hand corner of the LCD screen of the said laptop. Ld. counsel for o.p. no.1 raised a point that the appearance of the coloured spot on the screen of the laptop was not a manufacturing defect and the defect was caused due to the mishandling of the laptop by complainant.
In this point it is needed to be mentioned that in reply to the questionnaire by complainant, o.p. no.1 on affidavit submitted “A manufacturing defect can surface over a period of time but limited to its very initial period of usage” (reply of question no.28). Moreover, it is also admitted by o.p. no.1 (reply 23) that no such report could be generated by o.p. no.1from where it reveals that no report of trained professional in relation to detect the reason and nature of defect in question of the aforesaid laptop. Moreover, o.p. no.1 could not produce copies of inspection report of the service centres which had examined the laptop in question.
On the other hand, o.p. no.1 virtually admitted the alleged defect of the abovementioned laptop i.e. appearance of multi coloured large spot at the lower right hand corner of the LCD screen of the said laptop.
In the light of the above discussion we are of the opinion that o.p. no.1 being manufacturer is liable for supplying defective goods to complainant even after payment of total consideration by complainant and both o.p. nos.1 and 2 should not shirk off their responsibility to repair the goods in question in its proper form which should be free from any defect.
It is also opined by this Forum, after considering prose and cons of the instant case that due to negligence of both o.p. nos.1 and 2 to repair the defect of the goods in question, the complainant has to suffer harassment and mental agony and they are duty bound to compensate the complainant. Therefore, the case of the complainant is allowed in part.
Hence, ordered,
That the case of the complainant is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.1 and ex parte with cost against o.p. no.2 and ex parte without cost against o.p. no.3. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to repair the laptop in question in defect free condition free of cost and also directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony of the complainant due to deficiency of service of the o.p.1 & 2 and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are directed to comply the aforesaid order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of the COPRA, 1986.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
