DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 252 of 2014
Date of filing: 16.12.2014 Date of disposal: 17.8.2015
Complainant: Tekaram Kisan, S/o. Funu Kisan, resident of: Jogiadihi, PO: Malidihi, Jharsuguda, PIN – 768 213.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. The Manager, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at: A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, PIN – 110 044.
2. The Proprietor, MEDIATECH, having its office at: 238 B.C. Road, PO &PS: Burdwan, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Shyamal Kumar Ganguli.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: Ld. Advocate, Subhojit Mondal.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice as the OP-2 has supplied a laptop with lower configuration at higher consideration amount.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Sony VAIO SVF15318SNB model laptop for his personal use after making payment of Rs. 51,000=00 including VAT from the OP-2 who issued an invoice on 26.01.2014. The said laptop was manufactured by the OP-1. The laptop was under the warranty coverage for one year. After purchasing the said laptop the complainant brought the same at his house. After using the same for two or three days it was detected that the laptop is not with the same model number as has been sold to him by the OP-2. After detection, on the next date the complainant rushed at the shop of the OP-2 and informed the said matter. Though the OP-2 admitted the same, refused to change the laptop. The complainant being bonafide customer of the OP-2 came to know from various sources that the model delivered to him is containing lower configuration than the laptop which was purchased from the shop of the OP-2. On the date of its purchase the cost of the laptop of model no. SVF15218SNB was of Rs. 45,000=00 including VAT. The complainant made for payment for the laptop which belonged to a higher configuration but supplying a lower configuration laptop inspite of getting value for higher configuration laptop is nothing but an act of deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice and for this the OP-2 is liable to compensate the complainant for such act. As his grievance has not been redressed, finding no other alternative the complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the Op-2 to replace the laptop delivered to him with the laptop of model no. SVF15318SNB as he paid for the same, Rs. 10,000=00 towards compensation, Rs. 10,000=00 for mental agony and pain and Rs. 5,000=00 towards litigation cost.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-1 by filing written version wherein it is stated that the complaint is false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect as well as abuse of the process of law. As the complainant has approached just to avail undue advantage and to earn gain wrongfully at the cost of the OP-1, the complaint is liable to be dismissed u/S. 26 of the C. P. Act, 1986. The OP-1 has submitted admittedly that the complainant purchased a Sony VAIO laptop bearing model no. SVF15318SNB on 26.01.2014 when the OP-1 provided a warranty card of one year on it product from the date of its original purchase and hence the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and the conditions of the warranty provided by it and for this reason the OP-1 cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. The complainant approached the OP-2 on the next date of purchasing alleging the issue that the laptop model he received is different from the one for which he paid the consideration amount. It is further submitted that the actual model sold to him was SVF15218SNB instead of SVF15318SNB. The said transaction took place between the complainant and the OP-2 and nothing is related with the OP-1. The liability of the OP-2 is limited to service related issues after sell of the products. It is further submitted by the OP-1 that all the parties are bound by the terms of the warranty and the complainant has erred in making this OP as a party in the instant complaint as no cause of action arose against this OP, but with a view to harass this OP the complainant has impleaded it as a party to this proceeding, prayer has been made by the OP-1 for dismissal of this complaint with cost.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-2 by filing written version wherein it is stated that the complainant purchased Sony VAIO laptop SVF 15318SNB from this OP. He received the machine in good order and condition and after checking the laptop along with all necessary documents. After purchasing the machine the complainant never came to this OP with any complaint. But with some malafide intention he has filed this complaint before this ld. Forum with a view to squeeze some money through an illegal manner from this OP. As there was no deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-2, prayer has been made for dismissal of this complaint with cost.
The complainant and all the contesting Ops have filed evidence on affidavit respectively. The complainant has filed several documents in support of his contention and the OP-1 has also filed written notes of argument.
Be it mentioned for proper adjudication of this complaint direction was made by this ld. Forum to the complainant for production of the questioned laptop before this Forum and we have checked the same internally.
We have carefully perused the record, documents as available and heard argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the parties at length as well as examined the laptop internally.
It is seen by us that the allegation of the complainant is that though he went to purchase a Sony VAIO SBF15318SNB model laptop for his personal use after making payment of Rs. 51,000=00 including VAT from the OP-2 on 26.01.2014 but instead of the said model another model, namely, SVF15218SNB was supplied to him. On the date of its purchase model no. SVF15218SNB was of Rs. 45,000=00, but the OP-2 received a sum of Rs. 51,000=00 from him. Further allegation of the complainant is that after purchasing the said laptop it was detected within two or three days after its use that the laptop is not with the same model number as required by him and after detection he went at the OP-2 but no step has yet been taken by the OP-2 till filing of this complaint. According to the complainant he paid much amount for lower configuration laptop and such action of the OP-2 suffering from deficiency in service. It is further alleged by the complainant that as the OP-1 is the manufacturer of the said laptop for proper adjudication the OP-1 has been made necessary party to this proceeding and in this respect he has no mal-intention. Hence this complaint has been filed by him praying for certain reliefs along with replacement of the laptop delivered to him with the laptop of model no. SVF15318SNB. The contention of the OP-1 is that as no transaction has been made by and between the complainant and it, it has no liability either to replace he laptop or to make payment any amount towards cost and compensation as prayed for. The case of the OP-2 is that the complainant purchased the laptop of model no. SVF15318SNB from it, not SVF15218SNB as alleged by him. After being satisfied with the said machine and model along with configuration the complainant purchased the same and paid the consideration of the said laptop along with VAT on 26.01.2014. As in this regard there is no deficiency in service on its part liability cannot be imposed for making payment of compensation and cost. All the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The complainant has filed the invoice and the warranty card along with the petition of complaint. The invoice dated 26.01.2014 issued by the OP-2 reveals that the complainant purchased Sony VAIO laptop being model no. SVF15318SNB upon making payment of Rs. 51,000=00 in total along with VAT. The warranty card reveals the model no being SVF15218SNB IN5, but the said warranty card does not bear any stamp, signature of the authorized dealer and date of purchase has not been mentioned in it. Therefore, it is very difficult to presume for us as to from which dealer the complainant purchased the laptop being model no. SVF15218SNB IN5. Though the complainant has alleged that inspite of receipt of an amount of Rs. 51,000=00 towards the cost of the laptop being model no. SVF15318SNB the OP-2 had delivered the laptop being model no. SVF15218SNB IN5 which holds lower configuration. But the complainant has paid much amount for higher configuration; the OP-2 taking more consideration from him has delivered a laptop of lower configuration. Such action on behalf of the OP-2 amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice according to the complainant. In respect of the invoice and warranty card we are of the opinion that the two documents do not tally with each other because there is no endorsement of the authorized dealer- OP-2 i.e. seal and signature along with date in the same and the name of the OP-2 is also absent therein. Therefore, we cannot hold that the complainant purchased the model no. SVF15218SNB IN5 from the OP-2. The complainant has submitted the questioned laptop along with its box through a firisti before this ld. Forum. We have noticed surprisingly that though in the body of the said box some information were about the laptop regarding its model, serial no. date of manufacture, price etc. but it is sorry to say that the said information has been damaged by the complainant and in our view the same has been done with mal-intention and with a view to destruct the actual evidence. From the said information as the company used to provide to the customers we can get much evidence but as it has already been destructed it is very difficult to hold for us that the complainant purchased the laptop as submitted before this ld. Forum from the OP-2. Moreover where a complainant is inclined to purchase a laptop we cannot term him as an illiterate person and being a literate person it was also his duty at the time of purchase of the laptop as per his choice to tally the invoice with the product as well as the warranty card. No evidence is forthcoming before us that the complainant requested the OP-2 to put seal and signature along with date on the warranty card, but the same was refused by the OP-2. Therefore in absence of some necessary evidence the complaint fails to succeed. The complainant has further alleged that the OP-2 received excess amount for the said laptop as on date the price of the said laptop was for Rs. 53,990=00 inclusive of all taxes. But it is seen by us that the complainant paid Rs. 51,000=00 in total along with VAT towards the purchase of the said laptop. Therefore, such allegation does not have any legs to stand upon.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed on contest without any cost. Let the Laptop submitted in connection with this case and which has been kept in safe custody of this forum be returned to the complainant on proper receipt.
Let a plain copy of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Rules, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
