Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/646/2012

Pranshu Mittal S/o Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spectrum Computers - Opp.Party(s)

N.C.Mittal

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                         Complaint No. 646 of 2012.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 15.06.2012.

                                                                                         Date of decision:08.06.2016.

Pranshu Mittal aged about 25/26 years son of Sh. Vinod Kumar r/o House No. 67-68, Green Park Colony, Lal Dawara Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Spectrum Computers Near Fountain Chowk, Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Partner Sh. Sanjeev Gilhotra.
2. Sanjeev Gilhotra.
3. Rajiv Gilhotra, partners of M/s Spectrum Computers Near Fountain Chowk, Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               …Respondents.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. N.C.Mittal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Amit Bansal, Advocate, counsel for respondents.            

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Pranbshu Mittal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents         ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the laptop with fresh one of Sony Vaio with extended warranty and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased one laptop Sony Vio from the OPs who is authorized dealer of Sony Company vide bill No. 11.11.02692 dated 22.08.2010. As per scheme of the company and told by the OPs, the complainant was assured that the product bears a warranty of one year and this warranty can be extended for 2 years merely on the payment of Rs. 2500/- within warranty period and as such believing the representation to be true, the complainant paid Rs. 2500/- to the OPs vide receipt No. 111479 dated 05.08.2011 during initial warranty period and at that time the OP assured the complainant that the warranty/guarantee shall be got extended from the Sony Company for which the complainant should not worry. In the month of February, 2012, some defect crept up in the laptop in question and the complainant approached the OPs to get the defect rectified from the company and handed over his laptop to the OPs, who instead of getting it repaired from Sony Company they themselves replaced the original hard disk with the disk of Samsung company and also installed duplicate window therein without the knowledge of the complainant. As the defects were not cured so, the complainant approached the authorized service centre of Sony Company at Karnal who on seeing the receipt of Rs. 2500/- for extension of warranty tried to confirm about the extension of warranty, and when they found non extension of warranty, they refused to entertain the complaint of complainant and further they told that hard disk and window of the laptop are spurious one being of Samsung Company and duplicate window. The entire state of affairs was brought to the notice of the OPs but the OPs paid no heed to his genuine request and threatened the complainant not to contact him in future. Ultimately, a notice dated 11.05.2012 was served which was not replied. The OPs were bound to get it extended from the company as they had charged Rs. 2500/- for extension of warranty from the complainant and was also bound to get the laptop repaired/replaced from the Sony Company with original parts but as they have not done so, so, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered his affidavit and copy of bill dated 22.8.2010 as Annexure C-1, Copy of extended warranty receipt dated 5.8.2011 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of terms and conditions of warranty as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of identification slip as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of legal notice dated 11.5.2012 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of e-mail dated 21.2.2012 as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of status report of warranty as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complicated question of law and facts are involved; present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the OPs No.2 & 3 are neither partner nor proprietor of Op No.1; the laptop purchased by the complainant was out of warranty period and during the warranty period the complainant never visited the OPs nor he reported any manufacturing defect in the said laptop and it seems that the said laptop was mishandled by some unqualified person and it is settled principal of law and as per terms and condition of the warranty card if the laptop is tampered with by any unqualified mechanic then neither the manufacturer nor the supplier is liable in any manner whatsoever; as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merit, it has been admitted that complainant purchased one laptop Sony Vio for a sum of Rs. 41,700/- from the Op No.1 in sealed condition as received from the company. It has been further admitted that complainant was told that laptop was having one year warranty but the OPs never told to the complainant that there is extended warranty. However, the complainant was told that if he is interested then the OPs can provide him free services of laptop for on coming 2 years and no labour charges will be charged for the coming 2 years and the amount of parts will be borne by the complainant if he pays a sum of Rs. 2500/- for service charges in lump sum and upon which, he agreed and paid a sum of Rs. 2500/-. Further, it has been mentioned that complainant neither brought the laptop to the office of OPs nor the OPs ever replaced any hard disk or window as alleged and it seems that the complainant is playing hide and seek.  Rest contents of the complaint have been specifically denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of their version, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Gilhotra as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                     We have heard the counsel of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely.

5.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased Laptop CA 23 from Op No.1 i.e. Spectrum Computer vide its Bill No. 10.11.02692 on dated 22.08.2010 which is evident from copy of bill Annexure C-1. It is also not disputed that complainant further paid Rs. 2500/-  to Op No.1 vide receipt No. 11479 on dated 5.8.2011 on account of laptop extended warranty which is evident from bill Annexure C-2 and as per terms and conditions of the extended warranty Annexure C-3, the version of the OPs that they never told to the complainant that there was no extended warranty and they have charged Rs. 2500/- only on account of service charges in lump sum for coming 2 years and no labour charges have been charged and the amount of parts will be borne by the complainant is not tenable. As from the perusal of the terms and conditions of the warranty literature Annexure C-3, it is clearly evident that there was a scheme on behalf of Sony Vaio that consumer can avail extended warranty for further two(2) years i.e. from one year to three (3) years on the payment of Rs. 2490/- and as per this terms and conditions complainant might have paid Rs. 2500/- to the OPs vide its receipt bearing No. 111479 dated 05.08.2011. Further from the perusal of guarantee/ warranty status downloaded by the complainant from the site of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Annexure C-7, it is evident that as per record of the Sony Company there was warranty up to 12.09.2011 whereas it should be up to 21.08.2013  after adding the extended warranty of 2 years from the date of its purchase i.e. w.e.f. 22.08.2010 to 21.08.2013 (one year warranty plus two years warranty). Meaning thereby that OPs had not deposited the amount of Rs. 2500/- with the Sony India Private Ltd. and due to not depositing the said amount, the said Sony India Pvt. Ltd. has not extended the warranty on the laptop in question of the complainant. Even the stand taken by the Ops in their written statement also not seems to be genuine in view of the documents attached with the file i.e. terms and conditions of the warranty, literature and receipt of the extended warranty. Moreover, the Ops failed to file any cogent evidence in support of their version mentioned in the reply.

6.                     Although the complainant has also failed to file any cogent evidence that his laptop become out of order and due to that he has suffered some financial loss on account of repair from the local market and further the Ops replaced original hard disk with the disk of Samsung Company and also installed duplicate window in the laptop and in the absence of any cogent evidence by way of expert /mechanic report we are unable to hold that OPs have replaced the original hard disk with Samsung Company Hard Disk and installed duplicate window in the laptop in question and further complainant has suffered any financial loss, even then the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 2500/- from the OPs. The Ops failed to convince this Forum that they had actually deposited the amount with the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. on account of extended warranty charged from the complainant as per terms and conditions of the Sony Private Ltd. Annexure C-3.

7                      In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. As such the complainant is entitled for relief.

8                      Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs. 2500/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 05.08.2011 till its actual realization and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.08.06.2016.           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.