CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)x
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No. 381/2013
SH.ADITIYA ANSHU
S/O SH. N.K MISHRA
R/O A-3/3, M.S. FLAT,
R.K. PURAM, SECTOR-13
NEW DELHI
………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- UNIQUE INFORWAYS PVT. LTD.
G-2, GOVERDHAN HOUSE
53, 54, NEHRU PLACE
NEW DELHI-110019
- SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.
A-31 MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DLEHI-110044
………….RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 12/12/2018
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia-Member
The complainant purchased a laptop, Sony Vaio E Series laptop on 14/9/2012 for a sum of Rs.35,200/-. Thereafter, in March 2013 a crack appeared on the upper left side of the bezel. He took the product to the authorised service centre of OP2 who after accepting the same gave an estimate of Rs.3,713/- for repair. It is also stated that the complainant was informed that the LCD bezel cracked because of a screw popping inside the laptop. The photographs were taken by the service centre and a request of the complainant was forwarded to the manufacture of OP2.
In April 2013 the complainant was informed that the manufacturer has refused to repair the same within warranty. OP2 vide email informed the complainant that the cosmetic part was found to be damaged physically. It is due to some external impact and warranty stands void. Hence the services will be provided on chargeable basis. Several emails were exchanged between the parties. The complainant prays for replacement or refund of price along with compensation. Complainant has filed retail invoice, warranty card, job sheet, photographs of the product, and correspondence between the parties.
OP1 in its reply has stated that it is merely a sales outlet and as such it cannot be held responsible for the manufacturing defect. It is also stated that inspection carried by OP2 shows that cosmetic part was damaged physically due to some external impact.
Notice was issued to the OP2 but none appeared. OP2 were proceeded ex-parte on 17/12/2013.
We have considered the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and OP1. The retail invoice dated 14/9/2012 shows that laptop namely Sony Vaio E Series laptop was purchased for Rs.32,200/-. The warranty shows its validity for one year from the date of purchase.
The job sheet dated 28/3/2013 shows:
Warranty category as standard warranty.
Customer complaint: LCD bezel crack on upper left side, rest to be checked.
Estimate value 3,713/-.
The photographs annexed show the crack on the bezel on upper left hand corner. Website www.webopedia.com describes bezel as “the outside frame around computer tower or monitor. On a CRT computer monitor the bezel is the outside frame area around monitor glass”. This means that bezel is an outside casing of LCD screen.
Email dated 4/4/2013 by OP states that:
Dear Mr. Anshu
Greetings from Sony India.
This is in response to your email regarding service support for your VAIO model SVE15113ENW bearing series number 7029423, we wish to inform you that the mentioned product had been reported at Our Authorised Service Centre M/S club electronics with nature of complaint “LCD Bezel Crack on upper left side, rest to be check” vide service job number J305344245.
Upon preliminary inspection of the unit, the cosmetic part found to be damaged physically (refer attached photographs). Since the immediate and approximate cause of the symptom is not inherent to the set but it is due to some external impact, under such circumstances the warranty stands void and services shall be available on chargeable basis. An initial repair estimate of Rs.3,713/- have been prepared, we request you to approve the quoted repair estimate so that the necessary service may be rendered accordingly as we regret to inform you that we may not be able to comply with your request to replace the cosmetic spare part under warranty cover on free of charge basis.
If you need any further assistance or clarification, please contact us at on our tollfree number 1800-103-7799 (working hours 9:00am to 7:30pm; all 7 days). We would be delighted to assist you.
OP has refused to repair laptop under warranty as free of cost as damage appears to be due to some external impact. The photograph also clearly shows that there is a damage to the bezel. The complainant has not filed any proof to show that crack in bezel is due to popping of an internal screw as alleged in the complaint. As crack appears to be due some physical impact, it is not covered under warranty. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C SURI) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
.
