D.O.F:18/03/2015
D.O.O:29/06/2020
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.67/2015
Dated this, the 29th day of June 2020
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Shashikiran. S
Sunnaguli House,
Kodlamogaru Village & Post
Manjeshwar Taluk and Kasaragod District : Complainant
(Adv: Vittala.M)
And
- Sony India Pvt. Limited,
A – 31, Mohan Co-operative India -
Trial Estate, Mathura Road,
New Delhi – 110044 : Opposite Parties
- M/s Coretach Services,
Sony Authorised Service Centre,
G-1, Maurishka Towers, Bendoor
Mallikatte Road, Kadri, Mangalore, D.K. District
(Adv: A.N. Ashok Kumar)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
Complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
The case of complainant is that he purchased Sony Handy Cam on 14/10/2011,from Opposite Party paying paid Rs.21100/- as per invoice No: 1965. It covers a warranty period of three years. He also purchased memory card 09/12/2011. Complainant noted defects to the functioning of memory card and camcorder on 27/12/2013 it was taken to Opposite Party No:2 for repair/replacement. Opposite Party No:2 inspected it. PCB was replaced but problems continued. Opposite Party promised to repair/rectify defects but informed that. SD card cannot be replaced under warranty. E - Mail messages was sent on 02/04/2014 to set right the defects.
Opposite Party No:1 sent reply on 03/04/2014 promising resolution. E-mail messages sent on 18/04/2014 but no positive result from Opposite Party. On 30/04/2014 another E-mail is sent to Opposite Party followed by last E-mail messages dated 25/11/2014 alerting filing of complaint. Complainant finally filed the complaint seeking direction to Opposite Party to replace memory card with camcorder within a time to be fixed and to pay compensation and litigation costs.
Opposite Party No:1 and 2 appeared and filed written version. Opposite Party admitted purchase of Sony handy cam by complainant as mentioned with warranty card. All defects complained of were solved finally on 14/11/2014 accepted with full satisfaction and complainant was not ready to deposit the set for a look in to issues. Complainant insisted re-placement itself, that it is the discretion of the company regarding repair / replacement and hence denied any deficiency in service and sought dismissing the complaint.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined by Opposite Party as Pw1. Complainant produced documents marked as Ext A1 to A10. Ext A1 is the invoice, Ext A2 is the warranty card, Ext A3 to A10 are the E- mail messages to Opposite Party. Opposite Party has not adduced evidence.
In view of the averments in complaint and written version and documents following points arise for consideration.
- Whether Sony handy cam suffer any manufacturing defect , which requires replacement as per warranty terms?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service? If so whether complainant is entitled for any compensation? And if so for what reliefs?
All the points considered together for convenience.
The specific case of complainant is that the camcorder was getting off automatically after few minutes of recording and memory card suffer from crade around its terminals. Though once repaired problems still continued and despite several E mail messages there is no positive response.
Complainant filed IA 21/2016 with a direction to Opposite Party to produce copy of messages sent by complainant. It was allowed on 19/01/2016, but Opposite Party filed affidavit saying that those messages are not available with them.
The Opposite Party admits that product suffer from defect as complained by complainant. Grievances is that set was not deposited with Opposite Party for repair. Complainant was very particular that he needs replacement. The fact remains that Sony Handy Cam was purchased in 2011. It was used till 2014. It is covered by warranty card. Despite several messages no reply was sent by Opposite Party to complainant. Complainant says its camcorder and memory card is not functioning, its functioning seriously affected by the problems.
No steps are taken to prove manufacturing defect. But since camcorder and memory cards are not working product cannot be used with guarantee. So it needs replacement. The complaint was filed in 2015 and now of course till date he did not get back his own product worth functioning well. Now the fact remains that camcorder and memory card are liable to be replaced for a smooth, trouble free function of the set.
Since no documents are produced despite steps including arrest warrant, to Opposite Party did not produce even the e-mail messages by party but filed affidavit explaining its non-availability. So camcorder and memory card requires replacement for its working properly. Since service is very much delayed and Opposite Party did not take any interest in solving problems even after complaint and since even three years are over but problem not solved yet, there is deficiency in service of opposite party for which Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation. Considering all the circumstances the Forum consider a sum of Rs.15, 000/- will be reasonable and Opposite Party is also liable to pay cast of litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part with a direction to Opposite Parties to replace camcorder and memory card to the complainant free of costs and also pay Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) for deficiency in service together with Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Invoice
A2- Warranty Card
A3- to A 10 – E- mail messages
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
