DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.475 of 22-09-2011
Decided on 13-12-2011
Kailash Gupta son of Sh. Radha Krishan Gupta, Resident of Kothi No.402, Sector-20, Part-I, HUDA, Sirsa, aged about 50
years. .......Complainant
Versus
Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office:A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi,
through its M.D.
M/s Ravi Enterprises, Showroom 4551, Dhobi Bazaar, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Gurpreet Singh, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Laptop No.VPCEB36FG/B E1 Sony VAIO Sr.No.7005097 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide retail Invoice No.1580 dated 30.10.2010 with one year warranty from the authorized dealer M/s Ravi Enterprises, Dhobi Bazaar, Bathinda i.e. opposite party No.2 after taking Govt. loan from GPF A/c No.2661 at Sessions Court, Sirsa. The complainant has alleged that after few days of purchase the above said Laptop, started giving some problems relating to sound not good, touch pad malfunction, low battery backup etc. For this, the son of the complainant namely Mr. Nitesh Gupta visited on 05.02.2011 and 16.02.2011 to Sony Authorized Service Centre, SCO 126-127, Ist Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh but they have not rectified the defects in the said Laptop and linger on the matter on one or the other pretext. Due to the above said problems, the complainant cannot use the said Laptop. The complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 09.05.2011 but the opposite parties gave unsatisfied reply dated 10.08.2011. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to replace the said Laptop with new one or to refund th amount of the Laptop alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the opposite party No.1 is engaged in the business of distribution and marketing various electronics items under the brand name of “Sony”. The products of the opposite party No.1 are sold to customers through a network of its dealers across the country. The opposite party No.1 has a Principal to Principal relationship with its dealers and it is not liable for any act or omissions of its dealers. The opposite party No.1 has admitted that the complainant purchased Sony Vaio Laptop bearing No.VPCEB36FG/B E1 on 30.10.2010 and the complainant had been using the same without any defects till February, 2011. There is no manufacturing defect as he had been using the said Laptop for a period of four months without any complaint. The complainant in the present case, has not produced any report of independent expert with regard to any defect in the Laptop. The opposite party No.1 has also taken the support of various authorities. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that the complaints of the complainant were duly attended by the opposite parties and no evidence was produced by the complainant to support his case. The opposite party No.1 provides warranty on the Laptop marketed by the opposite party No.1 and the warranty provided, is governed by the terms of warranty agreed upon and acknowledged by the complainant at the time of purchase of the Laptop. The warranty provided is restricted by Clause 8 of the terms of warranty acknowledged by the customer. As per warranty terms, it shows that the opposite party No.1 gives warranty to service the product of the consumer, in case there is a defect in the same and the opposite party No.1 cannot be held liable to replace the product unless there is manufacturing defect in it and the same is not repairable. The opposite party No.1 has taken the support of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2508 wherein, it has held that the terms of warranty were binding on the parties and that the liability undertaken in contract between the parties should be limited to extent undertaken. On 05.02.2011, the Authorized Service Centre of the opposite party No.1 received a Laptop of the complainant vide Job Card No.WS100001411020500128 with nature of problem 'not working, window fail to login, showing operating system not found, as per customer sound not good, rest to be checked'. The authorized service center carried out recovery of the operating system in order to rectify the said defect and upon further inspection, the laptop was found to be working fine and within its specifications. The laptop was collected by the complainant on 05.02.2011 itself after checking and satisfied with the performance of the same. Thereafter, on 16.04.2011, they again received the laptop from the complainant vide job card no.WS100001411041600536 with problems relating to sound not good, touch pad malfunction and rest to be checked. The Speakers of the laptop were replaced and the touch pad connector was refixed by the authorized service centre in order to rectify the reported complaint and on further inspection, the laptop was found to be working fine and within its specification. The laptop was collected by the complainant on 21.04.2011 after checking the performance of the same. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 received a legal notice dated 09.05.2011. On receiving of this notice, the service department of the opposite party No.1 called up the complainant and received feedback from him that he was facing problems like low battery backup and touch pad malfunction, sound was cracking. The complainant was requested to visit M/s Kamla Enterprises, Hissar so that the laptop could be inspected and requisite service be rendered to the complainant but he refused to do so. Thereafter, the Area Service Incharge Mr. Dheeraj Tiwari went to the house of the complainant on 08.07.2011 to inspect the laptop. On checking, he observed that there was no problem with the speakers and touch pad and only the battery was defective but the same is not covered under the warranty. However, the opposite party No.1 agreed to provide the replacement of the battery as a goodwill gesture to the complainant in order to maintain customer satisfaction but the complainant refused the same and insisted that he wants the laptop to be replaced with new one. On non agreeing of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 replied to the legal notice send by the complainant vide their letter dated 10.08.2011 whereby, everything was explained to the complainant.
3. The opposite party No.2 has pleaded that the opposite party No.2 is engaged in the business of sales of various electronics items of various brands and “Sony” is one of the brand sold at the retail outlet of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 has a Principal to Principal relationship with the opposite party No.1. The liability is of the opposite party No.1 as it has sold the product to the consumer and after sale, the services are provided by the authorized service centres of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 has admitted the complainant purchased Sony Vaio Laptop bearing No.VPCEB36FG/B E1 on 30.10.2010 and the complainant had been using the same without any defects till February, 2011. There is no manufacturing defect as he had been using the said Laptop for a period of four months without any complaint. The complainant in the present case, has not produced any report of independent expert with regard to any defect in the Laptop. The opposite party No.2 has also taken the support of various authorities.
4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one Laptop of Sony VAIO Sr.No.7005097 of Rs.50,000/- vide retail Invoice No.1580 dated 30.10.2010 with one year warranty from the authorized dealer i.e. M/s Ravi Enterprises, Bathinda i.e. opposite party No.2 through cash payment. The said laptop after few days of its purchase, started giving some problems with regard to sound not good, touch pad malfunction, low battery backup etc. The complainant's son approached the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1 on 05.02.2011 and 16.02.2011. He had also sent a legal notice dated 09.05.2011 which has been replied by the opposite parties on 10.08.2011.
7. The complainant has submitted that the opposite parties failed to rectify the problems in the said laptop despite many visits, he alleged manufacturing defects in the said laptop and prayed for replacement or refund the amount of laptop.
8. On the other hand, the opposite parties have submitted that the complainant had brought the laptop in question to the authorized service centre on 05.02.2011 vide Job Card No.WS100001411020500128 with a problem of 'not working, window fail to login, showing operating system not found, as per customer sound not good, rest to be checked'. The authorized service center carried out recovery of the operating system in order to rectify the said defect and upon further inspection, the laptop was found to be working fine and within its specifications. The said laptop was handed over to the complainant on the same day i.e. on 05.02.2011. The complainant has taken it after being satisfying with the performance of the said laptop. On 16.04.2011, the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1 again received the said laptop from the complainant vide job card no.WS100001411041600536 with the nature of problem i.e. sound not good, touch pad malfunction and rest to be checked. The Speakers of the laptop were replaced and the touch pad connector was refixed by the authorized service centre in order to rectify the reported complaint and on further inspection, it was found working fine and within its specification. The complainant collected the said laptop on 21.04.2011 after checking its performance. The legal notice sent by the complainant was duly received by the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 called the complainant and received feedback from him, he told that he was facing problems like low battery backup and touch pad malfunction, sound was cracking. The complainant was requested to visit M/s Kamla Enterprises, Hissar so that the laptop could be inspected and requisite service be rendered to the complainant. Thereafter, the Area Service Incharge Mr. Dheeraj Tiwari went to his house on 08.07.2011 to inspect the laptop. On inspection, it was found that there was no problem with the speakers and touch pad and only the battery was defective but the battery is not covered under the warranty. However, the opposite parties are ready to replace the battery without admitting the contents of the complaint but the complainant had refused the same and insisted that he wants to replace the said laptop with new one.
9. A perusal of legal notice dated 09.05.2011 Ex.C-1 shows that in para no.3, the complainant has pleaded for the replacement of the said laptop within 15 days and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. A further perusal of this legal notice shows that the complainant has never requested for rectification of the problem in the said laptop rather he had demanded the replacement of the said laptop.
10. The complainant has faced the problem within few days of its purchase and the opposite parties have duly replied to the legal notice vide Ex.C-8 which is reproduced as under:-
“1. The Company had received the aforesaid product at our authorized service centre, M/s Modern Electronics, Chandigarh on 05.02.2011 vide job No.WS100001411020500128 with nature of problem “not working, window fail to login, showing operating system not found, as per customer sound not good, rest to be check.” Operating system recover was done to rectify the reported complaint and further upon inspection product was found to be working fine and within its specifications. The product was collected by you on 05.02.2011 after checking the performance of the set.
2. The company had received the aforesaid product at our authorized service centre, M/s Modern Electronics, Chandigarh on 16.04.2011 vide job No.WS100001411041600536 with nature of problem “sound not good, touch pad malfunction and rest to be check”. Speaker was replaced and touch pad connector was refixed to rectify the reported complaint and further upon inspection product was found to be working fine and within its specifications. The product was collected by you on 21.04.2011 after checking the performance of the set.
3. Thereafter, we have received legal notice on 17.05.2011. Upon receipt of the legal notice, undersigned has called you up and you updated that you are facing problem like Low battery backup and touch pad malfunction, sound is cracking and requested to visit at M/s Kamla Enterprises, Hissar so that we can inspect the set and can render necessary service support but you refused for the same.
4. Our Area Service Engineer, Mr. Dheeraj Tiwari had visited at your place on 08.07.2011 to inspect the set. Upon inspection of the set, he observed that there is no problem with the speakers and touch pad, only battery was found to be defective. We have requested you to allow us to replace the battery so that matter can be resolved but you refused for the same.
5. You are requested to kindly contact our Area Service Incharge, Mr. Dheeraj Tiwari for further service support in this regard. We reiterate that Company holds its customers in high esteem and we would request you to act accordingly.”
11. The complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-11 has high lighted the problems in the said laptop which are read as under:-
“1. The voice quality was not good and its was quite harsh.
2. Touch pad was not working properly.
3. Battery back up was quite low because of technical fault.”
12. Sh. Saket son of Dr. Ved Parkash Arya has deposed in his affidavit Ex.C-12 that the voice of the laptop was quite harsh and the nuts of hard disk were opened and there was also a dent on it. But in this regard, no photograph has been placed on file to corroborate this version. Moreover, in the pleadings, the complainant has nowhere pleaded that there was any dent in the said laptop.
13. A perusal of evidence placed on file by both the parties shows that there were some defects in the laptop but those were rectified and due to these faults, the complainant's son being a student, has suffered a lot. The opposite parties are ready to replace the battery of the said laptop. The defects are already rectified, if there is any defect in the laptop except dent as alleged by the complainant, the opposite party No.1 is ready to rectify the same. The complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence regarding the manufacturing defect in the said laptop. Thus, it would meet the ends of justice if the direction for the repair of the said laptop will be given.
14. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 is directed to rectify the defect in the said laptop free of cost and will handover the same to the complainant after getting signed the satisfaction note and will also give extended warranty of six months on the said laptop. The extended warranty will start from the date of receiving the said laptop by the complainant after repair against the satisfaction note. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
13-12-2011
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
