Haryana

StateCommission

A/816/2015

SONY INDIA PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SULAKSHNA KHURANA - Opp.Party(s)

ROHAN MITTAL

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.816 of 2015

Date of the Institution:28.09.2015

Date of Decision: 15.11.2016

 

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered office at A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Through its Authorized Signatory).

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

1.      Smt. Sulakshana Khurana, House No.799, Sector-1, Rohtakm Haryana.

2.      M/s Kamla Marketing 1306/28, Arjun Nagar, Opp. Raj Talkies, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana.

                                                                             …..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rohan Mittal, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr. S.K. Daaria, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - OP is in appeal against the Order dated 24.07.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak for short (‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Smt. Sulakshna has been allowed directing the OP-2 to refund the price of laptop i.e.Rs.46,409/- along with interest @9%p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization and a sum of Rs.2,500/- by way of litigation expenses. 

2.      Briefly stated, according to the complainant, she purchased a laptop from M/s Digital Compusystem Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon on 05.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.46,409/-. Since the very beginning the problem like hanging the Window-7 licensed software preloaded started corrupting. The complainant requested the OP and the service centre for making it functional, but the OP kept the laptop for 2-3 days and returned the same assuring that he had been repaired. But the server of the laptop went down for which the complainant again approached the OP several times, but the OP never cared towards the main problem of laptop, which was corrupting the window time and again, despite charging Rs.450/- on account of window corrupt charges. Since, the laptop was still not functional, the complainant requested the OPs to replace the same. The OP declined to do the needful, aggrieved against which, the complainant approached the District Forum for the replacement of the laptop with a new one or to refund the price of Rs.46490/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

3.      Since OP-1 did not appear before the District Forum, it was proceeded exparte and OP-2 alone contested the complaint. According to the    OP-2, the first complaint with regard to the alleged defect in the laptop had been made on 20.04.2013 and not prior to that and the complaint was regarding damaged USB and operating system problem. Since the laptop was not within the warranty, the service centre of the OP generated a service estimate and communicated the same to the complainant. Since, the complainant did not approve the said estimate, the report of the alleged problem could not be rectified. The complainant used the said laptop for a period of more than a year without any problem, therefore, there was no manufacturing defect in the laptop as alleged by the complainant. Despite this, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OP-2 and accepted the complaint vide order dated 24.07.2015 by granting the aforesaid relief. 

4.      Against the impugned Order, the OP-2 has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification. Reiterating the submissions as made by it before the District Forum, OP has stressed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant was duly informed that the warranty of the Laptop stood terminated due to the expiry of warranty period as agreed upon between the parties. 

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the complainant did purchase the laptop from OP No.1 on 05.10.2011 and it was for the first time on 20.04.2013 that the complainant approached the OP complaining about the defective functioning of the laptop. The warranty card clearly stated as under:-

“Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called Sony) warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects for a period of 1 year from the time of its original purchase. This non transferable warranty is only for you, the first end user. If during this period of warranty the product proves to be defective due to improper material or workmanship, Sony Service Centre/Authorized Service Centers will repair the product free of charge subject to the terms and conditions”.

6.      Moreover no evidence whatsoever oral or documentary has been produced by way of expert evidence to substantiate the allegation that the laptop had any manufacturing defect. It was after using the laptop admittedly for almost 1 ½ years that the complainant for the first time approached the OP for the inspection of the machine, when the warranty period had already expired. In this situation the decision of the learned District Forum regarding the refund of the price of the laptop is unsustainable in law. However, keeping in view the grievance of the complainant and the harassment suffered by him, we consider it appropriate to direct the OP-2 effect the necessary repairs in the laptop in order to make the same functional, without charging any amount therefore. With this direction, the appeal stands partly allowed and the decision of the learned District Forum stands modified accordingly. 

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

November 15th, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench