Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/685/2014

Raj Jacob - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Shiv Murti

25 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/685/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	16/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	25/05/2015

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Raj Jacob s/o Late Sh. R. Kishan, R/o H.No.1067, Sector 24-B, U.T. Chandigarh.

 

2.   Justin Jacob s/o Sh. Raj Jaob, R/o H.No.1067, Sector 24-B, U.T. Chandigarh.

 

….Complainants

Vs.

 

1.   The Managing Director, Sony India Pvt. Limited, Registered Office: North New Delhi-A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044.

 

2.   The Owner/ Manager/ Proprietor, Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Limited, Sony Authorized Service Centre, SCO No.144-145, First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

3.   The Owner/ Manager/ Proprietor, Sony Digital Store, SCO 59, Sector 20-C, Tribune Road, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA                PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Sunil K. Chindaliya, Advocate
For OPs	:	Sh. Amit Arora, Advocate

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainants had purchased a Laptop of Sony Company (Model No. E15123 ST 7008469) on 7.11.2012 from Opposite Party No.3 vide Bill Annex.C-1 for Rs.34,000/-, with one year warranty. It has been alleged that on the very next day, the Complainant found some defect in the working of the said Laptop and immediately approached Opposite Party No.3 regarding the same, but it (OP No.3) took no steps and advised the Complainant to use the Laptop for some time more and thereafter, he would send the Laptop to the company for checking the defect therein. It has been further alleged that on 03.01.2013, the Complainants approached the Opposite Party No.2 with the Complaint that the Laptop is not working properly, upon which it (OP No.2) replaced the Camera (Annex.C-2 & C-3). Thereafter on 01.11.2013, the Complainants visited the Opposite Party No.2 as the Laptop in question was not working properly. The Complainant handed over the Laptop to the Opposite Party No.2 for checking. On 10.12.2013, when the Complainants visited the Opposite Party No.2, they were told that the checking of the problem was in progress, due to which they had to return back without Laptop. On 20.01.2014, when the Complainants again visited the Opposite Party No.2, they were informed that the Laptop was “not working, showing operating system not found. HDD showing none in Bios” and Rs.7,000/- was demanded from them towards repairing charges. Under the compelling circumstances, the Complainants took back the Laptop from Opposite Party No.2 and returned to their home. Ultimately, the Complainants got issued legal notice dated 24.01.2014 (Annex. C-4) upon the Opposite Parties, inter alia, demanding appropriate services regarding the Laptop. In response to the said legal notice, the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. offered to provide service at special price of Rs.1123/- (part replacement free cost, only service charges applicable) (Annex.C-5). Accordingly, the Complainants paid Rs.1123/- to the Opposite Party No.2 to get the Laptop repaired. It has been alleged that even after repair, the Laptop in question is not working properly. The Complainants requested the Opposite Party No.2 a number of times to repair or replace the Laptop, but in vain. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainants, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainants have filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 in their joint reply have pleaded that the Complainant no.2 had purchased a Sony VAIO Laptop on 7.11.2012, with a warranty of one year (Warranty Card Annexure R-2). The liability of the answering Opposite Parties strictly lies in accordance with the terms & conditions of the warranty (Annexure R-3). It has been asserted that after a period of almost one year and two months from the date of purchase of the laptop i.e. 20.01.2014, the Complainant No.2 approached Opposite Party No.2 complaining of “operating system not found/hard drive not detected”. On receipt of the said Complaint, the Service Engineers of the Opposite Party No.2 promptly inspected the Laptop and found the hard disk drive of the Laptop to be defective which needed replacement for satisfactory working of the Laptop. As the warranty on the Laptop had already lapsed, the said Service Engineer charged a service fee of Rs.281/- from the Complainant No.2 for inspection of the Laptop and offered an estimate of Rs.9517/- to the Complainant No.2 for chargeable repair of the laptop but to no avail as the Complainant No.2 declined the same and left the premises of the Opposite Party No.2 with the laptop on 20.01.2014 itself. Two months subsequently i.e. on 27.3.2014, the Complainant No.2 sent a legal notice through his Advocate making vague and baseless allegations. In response to the said legal notice, Opposite Party No.1 discussed the matter with its higher management and sent letter dated 12.4.2014 to the Complainant No.2 thereby offering to waive off the price of the hard disk drive and repair the laptop on payment of only Rs.1124/- as service charges. In response to the said offer, the Complainant No.2 approached Opposite Party No.2 on 3.5.2014 with the laptop and approved the said estimate wherein the Opposite Party No.2 vide job sheet dated 3.5.2014 (Annexure R-4) immediately repaired the laptop and returned the same to the Complainant no.2 on 12.5.2014 to his complete satisfaction. Thereafter, no further Complaints were made by the Complainant no.2 regarding any alleged defect in the laptop. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The complainants have has filed a rejoinder, wherein they have reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainants. 

 

7.     The case of the Complainants is that Complainant No.2 purchased one Sony Laptop from Opposite Party No.3 on 7.11.2012 vide Bill Annexure C-1 for Rs.34,000/- with one year warranty. Annexure C-3 is the job-sheet dated 3.5.2014 approximately after 1½ year of its purchase with the Complaint “NOT WORKING, WINDOW FAIL TO LOGIN, DENT ON LEFT CORNER OF PALMREST”. Further, over this job-sheet condition of the product is mentioned as “BEZEL RUBBER MISSING, BATTERY LOCK BROKEN, DEEP SCRATCH ON LCD BACK AND SCRATCHY SET”. According to the Complainants, the laptop in question was repaired by the Opposite Parties after serving of a legal notice dated 24.1.2014 (Annexure C-4) by the Complainant No.2. As per the case of the Complainants, the Opposite Parties demanded Rs.7,000/- for repairing of the Laptop, but as per Annexure C-5 the Opposite Parties offered the said service at special price of Rs.1123/- (part replacement free cost, only service charges applicable). Annexure C-5 makes it amply clear that the Opposite Parties showed their regret to inform the Complainant that they were unable to comply with the request of free of cost service, as the product was out of warranty period. Annexure C-6 is the receipt of Rs.1124/- paid by the Complainant No.1 to the Opposite Party No.2 on 10.05.2014 for the aforesaid repair. Further, Annexure C-6 (Pg. 19 of the Complaint) is a receipt-cum-acknowledgement dated 9.5.2014 bearing the signatures of the Complainant No.2 to the effect that he is fully satisfied with the support given by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Also, Annexure C-7 is again one evidence showing the payment of Rs.1124/- by the Complainant No.1. As per the case of the Complainants, after this very repair, the product got defective again, but was never repaired by the Opposite Parties even after repeated requests.

 

8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that Opposite Party No.2 vide job-sheet dated 3.5.2014 (Annexure R-4) immediately repaired the Laptop and returned the same to the Complainant No.1 to his complete satisfaction. It has been urged that as the Complainants have not placed on record any further Complaint, therefore, the instant Complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

 

9.     A careful perusal of the file reveals that the laptop in question was repaired by the Opposite Parties after charging Rs.1124/- as service charge only as a goodwill gesture towards satisfaction of the Complainants even being the product out of warranty period. Annexure C-6 attached by the Complainants makes it crystal clear that Complainant No.2 paid Rs.1124/- being fully satisfied with the service and support given by the Opposite Parties and further he acknowledged that he did not have any claims pending against Sony India Pvt. Ltd. As per the version of the Opposite Parties, after this very repair, no further Complaints were made by the Complainants regarding any alleged defect in the laptop. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the requests of the Complainants for repair of the laptop in question were ever denied by the Opposite Parties. At any rate, the Complainants have also not annexed any report of any expert with regard to any alleged defect in the laptop.   

 

10.     Henceforth, judged from every angle and in view of the foregoings, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainants have not been able to prove their case of alleged deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.  Therefore, we do not find any merit, weight and substance in the present complaint.  Thus, the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

11.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

25^th May, 2015                           

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER