BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No: 211/2009 Filed on 13/08/2009

Dated : 30..11..2011

Complainant:

V.K. Sreekumar, Puliyarathala Veedu, Chenkal – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. J.R. Padmakumar)

Opposite parties:

1. The Chief Executive Officer, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31 Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

   (By Adv. R. Suja)

    

2. The Branch in-charge, QRS Retail Limited, t.C. 25/2498, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 1.

3. Branch In-chage, Madona Sales and Service, T.C. 11/767(1) Plamoodu Junction, Pattom Palace – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

    

(By Adv. Prabhu Vijayakumar)

This O.P having been heard on 25..11..2011, the Forum on 30..11..2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The allegations in the complaint are as follows: On 1/8/2008 the complainant purchased a Sony Digital Camera (Model DS CW 120 Silver) from the 2^nd opposite party vide Invoice No.010994 for Rs.11,590/- for his personal purposes. The Camera which the complainant purchased had a warranty coverage of one year from the date of purchase. The complainant had a very limited use of the Camera. On 25/7/2009 when complainant tried to take photographs the Camera did not function and hence he approached the 2^nd opposite party who directed him to the 3^rd opposite party to get the Camera examined. The 3^rd opposite party after examining the Camera revealed that the LCD of the Camera was broken and they had given an estimate for Rs. 4,943.50 towards the charges for repairing the Camera. When the complainant informed them that the Camera has a valid warranty the 3^rd opposite party asserted that they cannot do it unless specifically directed by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party and requested them to either replace the Camera with a new one or to get it repaired by themselves as there was a valid warranty for the product. But the 2^nd opposite party also refused his request. The complainant had been using the Camera with utmost care and caution and there had been no mishandling on his part in contributing to the malfunctioning of the same. The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties alleged that it was due to the careless handling of the Camera that the LCD was broken. The Camera being covered by a valid warranty the opposite parties are duty bound to either replace the defective Camera with a new one or to repair the same free of costs. By rejecting the claim of the complainant to either replace or to repair the Camera by the opposite parties they have made gross violation of the terms of the agreement by way of warranty between the opposite parties and the complainant. Hence this complaint.

2. Opposite parties 1 & 3 have filed their versions separately. 2^nd opposite party remains ex-parte. In the version of 1^st opposite party it is contended as follows: The complainant has deliberately concealed / suppressed material facts, having a definite bearing on the outcome of the case and by doing so has also made false and bald allegations against the 1^st opposite party. That the true and correct facts of the present case are the following: That the complainant purchased Sony Digital Camera Bearing Model No. DSC-W120 and Serial No. 2293525 on 1/8/2008, after satisfying himself with the specifications of the same. That the alleged complaint of the complainant of breakage of LCD was made to the authorised persons of the 1^st opposite party on 28/5/2009 and which was duly attended by the authorised persons of 1^st opposite party. That upon inspection of the camera in question, the LCD of the same was found to be broken and accordingly it was informed to the complainant that the camera in question was physically damaged as finds mention in job sheet dated 28/5/2009, which also bears signature of the complainant and also evident that the camera in question had fallen down and physically damaged. That it was also informed to the complainant that as per terms and condition of the warranty, the repair of the camera in question would be done on chargeable basis subject to approval of the complainant. That upon approval of the estimate by the complainant, the camera in question was repaired to its perfecion, however the complainant did not collect the camera in question despite numerous reminders and requests, and a letter dated 16/7/2009 was also sent to the complainant, whereby requesting the complainant to collect the camera in question and pay the repair charges to the authorised persons of the 1^st opposite party. That the repair of the camera in question was not covered under the warranty provided upon the purchase of the camera in question because of breach of terms and conditions of the warranty, provided upon the purchase of the camera in question hence the complainant is under obligation to pay the repair charges to the 1^st opposite party and not entitled to claim any benefits of warranty, provided upon the purchase of the camera in question. That the complainant, instead of collecting the repaired camera in question and paying for the repair's charges, preferred the instant complaint in furtherance of his malafide intention to take new model of camera, which is not maintainable and liable to be rejected by this Forum. The 1^st opposite party is always willing to provide service to the complainant in terms of warranty, provided upon the purchase of the camera in question to the complainant, hence there is no deficiency of services as alleged and the complaint under reply is liable to be dismissed.

3. The 3^rd opposite party in their version contends as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. That the complainant had brought the camera to 3^rd opposite party and on inspection, the LCD of the camera was found broken. The damage had occurred since the camera had fallen down resulting in the breakage of the LCD. This fact was recorded in the job sheet also. 3^rd opposite party had informed the complainant that damage due to negligent or careless use will not entitle him to claim the warranty then and there itself. The complainant had asked for an estimate for repairing the camera and accordingly 3^rd opposite party had given him an estimate of Rs. 4,943.50/-. The complainant had directed opposite parties to repair the camera and that he will bear the expenses and accordingly the camera was repaired. But even after informing the complainant several times, he had not taken delivery and the camera was kept under UCP (unclaimed product) label. The allegation of the complainant that the breakage of LCD was due to manufacturing defect arising out of substandard quality is absolutely false. There is no mental agony caused to the complainant due to any fault from the part of 3^rd opposite party. Instead, by not claiming the repaired camera, the complainant had caused 3^rd opposite party severe mental agony since the repair bill amount has been lying as dead money till date. 3^rd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P3. DW1 & DW2 were examined on behalf of opposite parties 1 & 3 and marked Exts. D1 & D2 respectively.

The issues for consideration are :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of defective camera with a new one or to repair the same free of costs as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether there is any deiciency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Reliefs and costs?

4. Points (i) to (iii) : The complainant has pleaded that the Camera purchased by him on 1/8/2008 became defective on 25/7/2009 and when the same was entrusted with the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant was informed that the LCD of the Camera has been broken and gave an estimate of Rs. 4,943.50/- towards the charges for repairing the Camera. The complainant further pleads that had there been any mishandling of the Camera by the complainant sufficient enough to get any of its parts broken, there would definitely have caused some other damage whether external or internal to it. That this clearly shows that the internal parts of the Camera purchased by the complainant are either defective or not of standard quality and the Camera being covered by a valid warranty the opposite parties are duty bound to either replace the defective Camera with a new one or to repair the same free of costs. According to the opposite parties the alleged damage was duly attended to by the opposite parties and on inspection, the LCD of the same was found to be broken and that in view of the terms and conditions of warranty the complainant is not entitled to claim any benefits of warranty. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is the nature of defect and whether the same is covered under warranty. Though the complainant has pleaded that on entrustment of the Camera to the opposite party, the complainant had been given an estimate of Rs. 4,943.50/- towards the charges for repairing the Camera and though in Ext. P3 also, it has been stated that the complainant has been issued with an estimate of Rs. 4,943.50/- towards repair charges, the complainant has not produced any record to substantiate the same. But the 1^st opposite party has produced Ext. D1 which is the service job sheet dated 28/5/2009 wherein the customer complaint has been recorded as 'LCD BROKEN' and further in the reception remarks it has been noted as "set with cable scratches on body, set fell down, physical damage'. Ext. D1 bears the signature of the complainant on the customer's signature column. The learned counsel for the complainant had contended that, the same is obtained fraudulently and complainant has not signed in such a paper and that Ext. D1 is only a copy. It is true that Ext. D1 is a photocopy but the same has been marked without any objection. Ext. D2 and Ext. D1 are one and the same. Ext. D2 has also been marked without any objection. The learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 3 contended that Exts. D1 & D2 are the copies of service job sheet and that the original will be with the complainant. The complainant has no case that he has not been issued with any receipt or such other documents at the time of entrustment. When a customer entrusts an item for service he would be definitely served with a receipt for the same which is not seen produced by the complainant and it is very hard to believe that a customer like the complainant entrusted the alleged Camera with the opposite parties without collecting any acknowledgement for the same. In the above circumstance, considering the facts evidence and documents in this case, we find that the complainant has not come with clean hands. When in Exts. D1 & D2 it has been noted that 'LCD Broken' the same is not covered under terms and conditions of the warranty wherein it has been stated that 'This warranty does not cover the risk to the product caused by accident, lightening, water, fire, other acts of God, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony's control. The complainant has miserably failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Considering all the above, we find that the complaint has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of November, 2011.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.

C.C.No: 211/2009

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : V.K. Sreekumar

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Original Retail Invoice dated 1/8/2008

P2 : Service warranty card

P3 : Copy of advocate notice dated 11/6/2009.

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : Madhu. K.M

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of service job sheet

D2 : " "

PRESIDENT