Delhi

East Delhi

CC/179/2014

CHANCHAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        170 /2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 14/02/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                05/07/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         07/07/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Ms. Chanchal Singh, adult   

D/o- Sh. O P Singh 

R/o-C-17, Eastend Apartment  

Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi 110092….…………………………….……..…………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1- Sony India Pvt Ltd

Plot no. A31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area

Okhla Phase 1, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044

 

2- M/s Nesco Inforsystem Pvt Ltd       

H-17, Shop no. 2&3, oppo. Metro Pillor 35,  

Nr Shipra Hotel, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092 ……..………………….……Opponents

 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant, Ms Chanchal Singh, a graduate in fashion designing wished to start her own business for herself and for her family by giving fashion design consultancy, so she purchased a Sony Vaio laptop from OP2/ M/s Nesco Infosystem vide model no. SVE15113, Black, SO1-7024953G with accessories for a sum of 30,800/- vide cash memo no. 659 dated 23/08/2012 in her name marked here as Ex CW1/1.

After using the said laptop, some problem occurred in switching the laptop besides touch pad functions from 07/10/2012 so complainant sent mail to OP2 stating her problem if functioning of laptop. Reply from was sent on the same date advising her to log on 11516559 for rectifying the problem as marked as Ex CW1/2 and OPW1/1 and OPW1/2.

Thereafter again email was sent for the same problem and complainant wrote for refund of her amount as the product was defective.  OP 2 reverted with advice to rum system recovery using F10 key as there was some software problem which required up gradation as annexed Ex CW1/3 and OPW1/3 on the same date (07/10/2012). Complainant again sent a email to OP for replacement of laptop on 30/10/2012 which again was reverted by OP asked to contact toll free no. 18001037799 or to provide her alternate mobile no. for further assistance as onsite service warranty was given.

Thereafter complainant again sent email on 27/11/2013 for refund of cost of laptop which was again reverted by OP as per Ex.OPW1/11 &12 dated 27/11/2013 gave acknowledgment for her complaint, but her problem was not rectified. She also sent a legal notice dated 02/01/2014 to OPs for refund of cost of laptop and compensation marked here CW1/5 through speed post receipt annexed here CW1/6&6A. After receiving reply of legal notice from OP dated 04/02/2014, filed this complaint claiming loss in her E-commerce for a sum of Rs 5 lakhs and other losses with total claimed amount Rs 13,65,000/-.

After receiving notices, OP2 submitted their joint written statement for OP1 also and denied all the allegations against them It was submitted that OP2 had timely replied to all her emails and all the required assistance were provided besides proper reply of her legal notice. But she did not responded properly as per the advice. OP stated that despite of commercial use of their product, all the required assistance was given She failed to take her laptop to their authorized service center though onsite warranty was given by them. More so, her last email was received in the month of Nov. 2013 which was beyond the tenure of warranty, still all the assistance was provided free of cost. Hence, there was deficiency in their services nor had any manufacturing         defect, so this complaint be dismissed.

Complainant submitted her rejoinder with evidences on affidavit where she affirmed on oath that all the contents stated in her complaint were correct and true. Complainant also submitted photographs of her shop dated 29/01/2014 as evidence.  

OP also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Md Meena Boss as authorized person of OP2. It was affirmed by OP that present complaint was not a genuine consumer as she was using her laptop for commercial purpose. It was also submitted on oath that all the required assistance and home visit of their service engineer was provided before filing her complaint. There was no deficiency in their service during warranty tenure and even after one year, her email complaint was attended in Nov 2013 and reply to legal notice was also given much before filing her complaint.  There was no manufacturing defect or deficiency in their services.

 

Arguments were heard from both party counsels and afte perusal of records on file, order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was seen that the said laptop had developed some software problems during warranty period which were properly guided by OP in response to emails sent to them and even in the after expiry of warranty period, her complaint in Nov 2013 was attended by their service engineer and reply to legal notice was given for all queries and assistance, but there was no evidence after Nov. 2013 for the working status of her laptop and also no evidence of laptop was filed during the pendency of her case.

 

Also no evidence to see that business of E commerce loss to the tune of 5 lakhs occurred by this laptop as claimed in her complaint and shop photographs dated 29/01/2014 exhibited as CW1/7 could not prove any sign of loss or deficiency of OP though she had submitted one invoice of another laptop purchased for her work (during the course of arguments) which has no relevance to this complaint.

It was evident that she was doing her E business for herself and used the laptop for her livelihood in reference to Sec. 2(d)ii with explanation in The Consumer Protection Act. 1986 which reads as –

                                      “For the purpose of clause, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment”.

 

Here in this case also, complainant had bought laptop and was using in her E commerce business of Fashion designing and wished to earn for herself under self employment.

So, defence taken by OP in their written statement that complainant was not a genuine consumer, does not hold any weight. Irrespective of this explanation, there is no merit in this complaint as no concrete evidence on record has been submitted by complainant to prove deficiency in services and manufacturing defect under standard warranty tenure. Also there was no job sheet evidence submitted to establish any defect or deficiency in OPs, though onsite warranty was given by OP1/manufacturer of the product.    

 

Thus, we come to the conclusion that complainant could not establish deficiency in services of OP2 or defective product was sold by OP1, so, OPs are discharged from any liability and subsequent this complaint is dismissed without any cost.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

(Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                                Mrs Harpreet Kaur                                                                                 

    Member                                                                                                                                  Member                                                                                   

                                               

                                              Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                             President