Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/44/2014

Anshu Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor. Info Solution - Opp.Party(s)

S.M.Tigadi.

09 Feb 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

: ORDER :

The complainant has filed complaint U/s. 12 of C.P. Act. Alleging deficiency of service against opponents for manufacturing defect of Sony Laptop.

2) O.Ps. appeared and filed their version denied facts and allegations in the complaint.

          3) Both parties have filed their affidavits and some documents are produced by both the parties.

          4) We have heard the arguments of the counsel for complainant and O.Ps. and have perused the records.

5)  Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. for manufacturing defect of Sony Laptop and that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?

6) Our finding on the point is partly in Negative, for the following reasons.

: REASONS :

7)      The complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. for manufacturing defect in the Laptop purchased on 23/4/2013 from opponent No.1 for price of Rs.29,800/- and the opponents No.1 assured one year warranty for the purchase of Sony company Laptop model No. SVE1511AENB bearing serial No.7049516. The complainant further alleged that in the last week of September complainant was using the Laptop for daily work, the screen turned black and the complainant took the laptop to O.P.No.1 shop and explained about the problem and opponent No.1 suggested that complainant to take the laptop to O.P.No.2 service center and opponent No.2 check the problem stated that laptop screen is damaged due to external and demanded Rs.10,000/- to get it repaired. The complainant further alleged that he sent email to O.P.No.3 explaining the problem and O.P.No.3 replied stating that the damages due to external impact therefore O.P.No.3 is not liable to undertake warranty repairs. The complainant further alleged that opponents have wrongly concluded about damage and there is no damaged on the screen of the Laptop and the complainant has used the Laptop carefully and there is manufacturing default in the said laptop which is in the warranty period. The complainant further alleged that he issued legal notice on 29/10/2013 requesting the opponents to consider the claim and the opponent No.1 and 3 repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that LCD (Screen) damaged due to external impact. The complainant alleged that he studying M.C.A. and the laptop is required for study and there was no alternative to the complainant to file this complaint against the opponents for deficiency of service and prayed to allow the complaint as prayed.

8) On the other hand, the opponents filed objection contending that the complaint is not maintainable, baseless etc., The opponents contends that opponent No.1 is authorized dealer, O.P.No.2 is a Service Center and O.P.No.3 is a distributor and marketing of various electronic items under brand name of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., and stated that the managing director has wrongly been arrayed as a party. The opponents further contends that the complainant has purchased a Sony vaio Laptop on 23/4/2013 and O.P.No.3 provided a limited warranty on the product and the liability lies according to terms and conditions provided by O.P.No.3. The opponents further contends that warranty items it is clear that authorized service center of O.P.No.3 is liable to provide free of cost repairs on products only during warranty period of one year, that to in case of defect due to improper material or workmanship and not when the defect was arisen due to external cause and further stated that the warranty is rendered void if any external damage is caused to be produce. The opponents further contended that O.P.No.2 after examination the laptop found that the same is physically damaged and visible as extending from the Laptop left hand side of the screen to the bottom right hand side corner screen and the document is produced at annexure No.3. The opponents contends that on 14/11/2013 the opposite parties have communicated the complainant in regards to external damage and denied the deficiency of service on the part of the opponents.

9) We have gone through the documents produced by the both the parties and also heard the argument and contents of complaint and objection and affidavit filed by both the parties. Before coming to the conclusion the complainant has produced the Invoice for the purchase of Laptop and also a warranty card and replies given by the opponents and also the repudiation latter for the claim made by the complainant. No doubt that the Laptop purchased by the complainant is admitted by the opponent No.3 and also that the Laptop is damaged within warranty period but we have to noticed that the reply given by the O.P.No.2 and 3 dated 11/10/2013 and 25/11/2013 for the notice given by the complainant on 28/10/213 wherein we can read that the claim of the complainant has been rejected for repairs as there was an external damage and for the repairs the complainant has to pay the charges as claimed by the opponent No.2 Service Center. The point to be noted here is that whether there is a manufacturing defect in the Laptop purchase by the complainant from the opponent No.1 and there is no external damage to the Laptop? After going through document submitted by the opponent we have notice that at annexure R-3 the Xerox copy of the screen shows a crack on the screen of the Laptop. By this Xerox copy one cannot come to the conclusion that there is an external damage to the Laptop, but on 12/1/2015 the opponent No.1 and the complainant filed a joint memo before the forum to send the Laptop to the service center address shown in the joint memo to verify the manufacturing defect or the damage due to external impact and obtain the opinion and report from the Service Center. On production of this joint memo the forum on 12/1/2015 order to issue Commissioner Warrant and Commissioner fees also came to be fixed to submit the report by the service center address mentioned in the joint memo and adjourned the matter for the report on 16/1/2015. After perusal of the order sheet we notice that the matter is adjourned as awaiting for report and also that after sufficient opportunity given to complainant and opponent the matter was heard and taken for judgement.

10) The opponent No.3 contends in his objection and also in his affidavit that as per the clause 8 of the warranty items “This warranty shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening, ingress of water, fire or acts of God, improper ventilation, dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond Sony’s control and/ or any damage caused due to tampering of the product by an unauthorized agent”. By this warranty items we can notice that the opponents are not liable for the damages as mentioned supra and also that as per the contends and also according to the joint memo filed by the complainant and opponent, it was the complainant to take the laptop to the service center to mentioned in the joint memo and get the same for service or get the report in regards to the manufacturing defect or to know that it is being damaged due to external impact or not, but even after filing a joint memo the complainant did not approach the service center for the commissioner report nor any expert opinion submitted before the forum by the complainant, even after there was a specific direction given by the forum to submit Laptop to the address given in the joint memo. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant has not proved deficiency of service on the part of the opponents as alleged in the complaint and also the complainant has failed to produce the Laptop before the commissioner appointed by the forum as per his prayer in the joint memo. Hence the say of the opponents that there was an external damage to the Laptop and there was no manufacturing defect in the laptop is be believed and accepted.

11) The opponents relied on the rulings reported in

1) 2014 (3) CPR 779 (NC) wherein the lordship have held that

Dr. Nilesh G. Nimavat V/s. Medipicks & Anr.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 15,17, 19 and 21-Machinery-Manufacturing defect-Supply of defective X-Ray machine-Complaint dismissed by Fora below-Petitioner has not placed any expert evidence on record so as to show about the defects in the X-Ray machine and also to show since when there was extra emission from X-Ray machine which has caused health problem to petitioner.

“Important Point”

Manufacturing defect must be proved by expert evidence.

2) 2014 (3) CPR 670 (NC)

Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V/s. M/s. Parkshit Tractors

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 15,17, 19 and 21……. District Forum without any expert evidence regarding manufacturing defect committed mistake in directing replacement of tractor- State Commission rightly modified order of District Forum……”

“Important Point”

Manufacturing defect cannot be interior without any expert evidence.

3) 2014 (1) CPR 717 (NC)

Vice President & Ors V/s. Ashish Aggarwal & Anr.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 15,17, 19 and 21-Automobile-Manufacturing defect-Question as to whether there was or was not any manufacturing defect in vehicle could not have been decided by allegations and counter allegations by District Forum and could have been decided effectively and successfully only after obtaining expert opinion in that behalf….”

“Important Point”

Question regarding manufacturing defect in vehicle could be decided effectively and successfully only after obtaining expert opinion.

4) 2013 (3) CPR 724 (NC)

Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Through its Senior Regional Manager V/s. Shri Ajwant Singh & Anr.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 15,17, 19 and 21-Automobile…. No expert opinion was produced by complainant before District Forum to prove that tractor sold to him had some inherent manufacturing defect in it-None of snags/problems noted by representative of petitioner-company can be said to be a manufacturing defect…”

“Important Point”

Manufacturing defect must be proved by expert opinion.

The lordship have held in the above decisions mentioned  supra that unless there is an expert opinion manufacturing defect cannot be proved herein the case on hand the Forum has given ample opportunity to the complainant by referring to the expert opinion and also ordered the complainant to submit the Laptop before service center shown in the joint memo by both the parties, but the complainant has fail to produce same and there was no expert opinion put forth by the complainant before the forum. Hence the complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the Laptop purchase by him from the opponent No.1. The citation referred by the opponent are very much application to the present case on hand.

12) Hence accordingly following order;

: ORDER :

The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.

 

 (Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 9^th day of February 2016).

 

 

 

          Member                    Member                    President.

gm*