Karnataka

Bangalore 3rd Additional

CC/1445/2014

Raghavendra. P.G., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Sony India - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2016

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/1445/2014
 
1. Raghavendra. P.G.,
S/o Gopal Chetty, No.278, Krishnan Palya, Bangalore-560 038.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Manager, Sony India
No.768, 100 Feet Main Road, HAL 2nd Stage, 12th Main, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038.
2. Manager, Sony Authorized Service Center
237/240, 13th Cross, CMH Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 038
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. H.S.RAMAKRISHNA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. L MAMATHA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 31 Dec 2016
Final Order / Judgement

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 CC No.1445.2014

Filed on 16.08.2014

Disposed on 31.12.2016

 

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1445/2014                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 

PRESENT:

     Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

            PRESIDENT

                 Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                        MEMBER

                  

   

COMPLAINANT         

 

 

 

Raghavendra P.G

S/o Gopal Chetty,

No.278, Krishnan Palya,

Bangalore-560038.

 

                                              V/S

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/s 

1

Manager,

Sony India,

No.768, 100 Feet Main Road,

H.A.L.2nd Stage,

12th Main, Indiranagar,

Bangalore-560038.

 

2

Manager,

Sony Authorized Service Center, 237/240, 13th Cross, CMH Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Bangalore-580038.

 

 

ORDER

 

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

 

  1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 16.08.2014 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant has alleges that on 15.08.2013 had purchased the Sony SVF 15213 SNB IN5 Laptop, product Serial No.90100074197, for a sum of Rs.39,000/- new laptop purchased by the Complainant was heating up very badly and use to switch off immediately could not use the Laptop for 2 minutes and felt very nervous to use the new laptop and also the Complainant was facing the problems of the laptop like hanging and also the touch pad was not responding properly.  The Complainant immediately rushed to the 1st Opposite Party and upraised the problems facing in the new Sony Laptop, but there was a shock to the Complainant that, the Opposite Party who is responsible, being as an authorized Dealer did not respond accurately and after many days of request the 1st Opposite Party asked the Complainant to contact the 2nd Opposite Party, who is the Service Centre of Sony Laptop Company.  As per directions of the 1st Opposite Party contacted the 2nd Opposite Party on 20.06.2014 and updated the problems facing by the Complainant, the 2nd Opposite Party took the Sony Laptop the Complainant registered the complaint on the same day and the executive promised to look into the matter and rectify the same.  The 2nd Opposite Party contacted the Complainant over phone and said that the Laptop is used one the battery in the said laptop is not new one and the number of the battery is differ from the bill No.7406 and differs as 7419, and asked for another 7 days to repair.  The Complainant agreed to receive the laptop on 01.07.2014, the said laptop is under warranty period even after the service, the Complainant was facing the problems of the Laptop like hanging and also the touch pad was not responding properly.  The Complainant again contacted apprised the problems facing by the Complainant.  The 2nd Opposite Party again received the laptop on 12.07.2014 and assured the Complainant that this time the laptop will be set rite and new battery will be replaced but the 2nd Opposite Party changing their words in giving the new battery and asking the Complainant to take already used battery hence, the Complainant denied to receive the laptop from the 2nd Opposite Party.  It clearly shows that the Opposite Parties in order to cheat the Complainant had caused unjustified delay in giving warranty service to the Complainant, now the Complainant is not in trust with the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties, the 2nd Opposite Party may change the laptop or the new parts to old parts as already done by the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties.  Hence, the Complainant issued Legal Notice dt.05.08.2014.   The Opposite Party has not rectified the laptop delay even after several reminders, personal visit.  Under the circumstances, the Opposite Parties are guilty of the deficiency of service.  Hence this complaint. 

 

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  In the version pleaded that the complaint is vexatious, baseless an abuse of the process of law and filed to interest and reputation of the Opposite Parties.  All the allegations of the contention made by the Complainant which is contrary and inconsistent.  The Complainant purchased the Laptop on 15.08.2013 and use the laptop for a period of nearly 10 months with no problem whatsoever before approaching the Opposite Party No.2 on 20.06.2014.  Therefore, the allegations of manufacturing defect in the laptop are absolutely baseless and not maintainable. It has been manufactured defect in the laptop as alleged by the Complainant, the laptop would not have functioned for a single day much less the 10 months that the Complainant used the laptop before approaching the Opposite Party No.2.   The Sony India Private Limited provides a limited warranty on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.  The Complainant after using the Laptop for a period of almost 10 months without any problem whatsoever, approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 20.06.2014 with the complaint “low battery backup, mouse pad not working”.  The Laptop was thoroughly inspected by the Service Engineers and the complete OS recovery was done and the laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 21.06.2014 once the Complainant had inspected the laptop.  The second service request was received from the Complainant on 03.07.2014 alleging that the problems complained of on 20.06.2014 still persisted.  The Service Engineer replaced the click pad assembly in order to resolve the issue and the laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 04.07.2014 upon satisfaction of the Complainant as to the working of the laptop.  The problem complained of in the laptop were duly rectified in a span of a day without causing any delay.  However, the Complainant once again approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 12.07.2014 alleging the complaints of “Booting slow, USB port not working, with respect to the laptop.  The laptop was thoroughly inspected and tested by the Service Engineers.  The service engineers repeated an OS recovery on the laptop and the laptop was further tested for a while before concluding that the laptop was working perfectly.  The Complainant was informed by the representatives of Opposite Party No.2. On 14.08.2014 that the laptop was ready to be collected.  However, the Complainant has failed to collect the laptop till date.  The Hardware replacement in the laptop was carried out only at the time of the Second repair and during the first and third repair, it was merely an Operating System recovery that was carried out.  It is submitted that this OS recovery is usually done by the customer himself.  Since the Complainant in this case was unable to do so, the answering Opposite Parties were happy to provide the necessary support to the Complainant.  The Complainant is not liable to any relief.  The grievance of the Complainant have been duly addressed on every occasion by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties therefore there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant requesting to collect the laptop which is in perfect working condition and is making false and baseless allegations.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.   The Complainant, Sri.Raghavendra P.G has been filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, the affidavit of one Smt.Meena Bose has been filed.  Heard the arguments of both parties.  

5.     The points that arise for consideration are:-

  1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
  2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

 

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

 

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7.   POINT NO.1:- As looking into the complaint and also the version filed by the Opposite Parties, it is not in dispute that on 15.08.2013 the Complainant had purchased Sony SVF 15213 SNB IN5 Laptop, for a sum of Rs.39,000/-.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and produced the Cash Memo.  As looking into this document, it is clear that on 15.08.2013 the Complainant had purchased Sony SVF 15213 SNB IN5 Laptop for a sum of Rs.39,000/-.

8. It is further case of the Complainant that new laptop purchased by the Complainant was heating up very badly and use to switch off immediately could not use the Laptop for 2 minutes and felt very nervous to use the new laptop and also the Complainant was facing the problems of the laptop like hanging and also the touch pad was not responding properly.  The Complainant had immediately rushed to the 1st Opposite Party and upraised the problems facing in the new Sony Laptop.  The Opposite Party No.1 who is Authorized Dealer did not respond accurately and after many days of request the 1st Opposite Party asked the Complainant to contact the 2nd Opposite Party, who is the Service Centre of Sony Laptop Company.  As per directions of the 1st Opposite Party contacted the 2nd Opposite Party on 20.06.2014 and updated the problems facing by the Complainant, the 2nd Opposite Party took the Sony Laptop of the Complainant registered the complaint on the same day.  After 4 days, the 2nd Opposite Party contacted the Complainant over phone and said that the laptop is a used one the battery in the said laptop is not new one and the number of the battery is differ from the bill No.7406 and differs as 7419, and asked for another 7 days to repair.  The Complainant had agreed to receive the laptop on 01.07.2014, the said laptop was under warranty period even after the service, the Complainant was facing the problems of the Laptop like hanging was not responding properly. The Complainant again contacted apprised the problems facing by him with the 2nd Opposite Party.   The 2nd Opposite Party again received the laptop on 12.07.2014 and assured the Complainant that this time the laptop will be set rite and new battery will be replaced but the 2nd Opposite Party changing their words in giving the new battery and asking the Complainant to take already used battery hence, the Complainant denied to receive the laptop from the 2nd Opposite Party.  In order to substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and produced Service Job Sheet.   As looking into this document, it is clear that this Service Job Sheet is issued by the 2nd Opposite Party it is dt.20th June 2014 and Opposite Party No.2 received the laptop of the Complainant for service.   The complaint of the Complainant is that battery low backup agreed to complete format Mouse Pad Lock Pam to Check.  On 01.07.2014 the Complainant had received the laptop with an endorsement touch pad re-fixed recovery done, battery backup, checked all the function observed working fine.  By satisfying functions of the laptop, the Complainant had received the laptop from the Opposite Party No.2 and this evidence is clear that the Opposite Party No.2 render proper service as per the Job Sheet dt.20.06.2014.  The Complainant also produced Service Job Sheet issued by the Opposite Party No.2 dt.12.07.2014.  As per this Job Sheet, booting slow USB Port left not working Mouse pad not working while playing CD Freezing OS not booting agree to format battery low backup.  The Opposite Party No.2 has not rendered any service and returned the faulty laptop.

 

9. Now the defence of the Opposite Parties is that, the Complainant used Laptop for a period of 10 months with no problem whatsoever before approaching the Opposite Party No.2.  Therefore, the allegations of manufacturing defect in the laptop are absolutely baseless.   But this contention of the Opposite Parties is not proper since the Complainant clearly pleaded that laptop purchased by the Complainant found defective i.e. heating up of very badly hanging and also touch pad was not responding properly and immediately the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Party No.1 till 20th of June 2014 has not furnished the address of Opposite Party No.2, on 20.06.2014 the Opposite Party No.1 directing the Complainant to approach the Opposite Party No.2.    Further defence of the Opposite Parties is that the 2nd service request was received from the Complainant on 03.07.2014 alleging that the problems complained of on 20.06.2014 still persisted.  The Service Engineer replaced the click pad assembly in order to resolve the issue and the laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 04.07.2014 upon satisfaction of the Complainant as to the working of the laptop.  To substantiate this defence, except the interest version of the Complainant, there is no supporting evidence if really the Opposite Party No.2 had attended the complaint of the Complainant on the 2nd time i.e., 01.07.2014 as per the Job Sheet and problem was attended properly and laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 04.07.2014 with satisfaction working condition there should be relevant documents.  But such documents have not produced by the Opposite Parties.  Thereby, it is not proper to accept the defence of the Opposite Parties.  On the other hand, it is the case of the Complainant that the faulty laptop is still with the Opposite Party No.2.

10. It is further defence of the Opposite Parties the aforesaid two visits made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2, the problems complained of in the laptop were duly rectified in a span of a day without causing any delay.  However, the Complainant once again approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 12.07.2014 alleging the complaints of “Booting slow, USB port not working, with respect to the laptop.  The laptop was thoroughly inspected and tested by the Service Engineers.  The Service Engineer repeated an OS recovery on the laptop and the laptop was further tested for a while before concluding that the laptop was working perfectly.  The Complainant was informed by the representatives of Opposite Party No.2. On 14.08.2014 that the laptop was ready to be collected.  However, the Complainant has failed to collect the laptop till date.  Even to substantiate this defence also except the interested version of the Complainant.  The Opposite Parties have not placed any evidence if really the faulty laptop was properly rectified and repaired by the Opposite Parties and it was informed to the Complainant by the representatives of the Opposite Party No.2.  The Opposite Party No.2 ought to have mentioned this specific person’s name through which they have communicated the Complainant to take back the rectified and satisfactory working condition of the laptop but except the interested version have not placed any evidence.  Thereby, it is not proper to accept the defence of the Opposite Parties.  On the other hand, even as admitted by the Opposite Party No.2 the laptop is still with the Opposite Party No.2, there is any defect apparent on the laptop which is not proper to rectify by the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.1 had not properly rendered the service to get it repaired through Opposite Party No.1.  Thereby, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.   Hence, this point is held in the affirmative.  

11. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

 

ORDER

 

The Complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to replace new Laptop by receiving faulty Laptop to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony to the Complainant. 

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are granted 30 days’ from this date to comply this order. 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 31st day of December 2016)

 

 

 

    MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

 

  1. Sri.Raghavendra P.G, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

 

  1. Bill dt.15.08.2013,
  2. Service Job Sheet dt.20.06.2014,
  3. Job Service Sheet dt.01.07.2014(Discovery),
  4. Service Job Sheet dt.12.07.2014,
  5. The Legal Notice dt.05.08.2014.

 

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:

 

  1. Smt.Meena Bose, on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 by way of affidavit.

  List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

 

  1. Copy Of the Board Resolution dt.04.07.2011
  2. Copy of the Warranty Terms and Conditions
  3. Sonnet Care Letter dt.05.09.2014

 

 

 

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 CC No.1445.2014

Filed on 16.08.2014

Disposed on 31.12.2016

 

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1445/2014                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 

PRESENT:

     Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

            PRESIDENT

                 Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                        MEMBER

                  

   

COMPLAINANT         

 

 

 

Raghavendra P.G

S/o Gopal Chetty,

No.278, Krishnan Palya,

Bangalore-560038.

 

                                              V/S

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/s 

1

Manager,

Sony India,

No.768, 100 Feet Main Road,

H.A.L.2nd Stage,

12th Main, Indiranagar,

Bangalore-560038.

 

2

Manager,

Sony Authorized Service Center, 237/240, 13th Cross, CMH Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Bangalore-580038.

 

 

ORDER

 

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

 

  1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 16.08.2014 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant has alleges that on 15.08.2013 had purchased the Sony SVF 15213 SNB IN5 Laptop, product Serial No.90100074197, for a sum of Rs.39,000/- new laptop purchased by the Complainant was heating up very badly and use to switch off immediately could not use the Laptop for 2 minutes and felt very nervous to use the new laptop and also the Complainant was facing the problems of the laptop like hanging and also the touch pad was not responding properly.  The Complainant immediately rushed to the 1st Opposite Party and upraised the problems facing in the new Sony Laptop, but there was a shock to the Complainant that, the Opposite Party who is responsible, being as an authorized Dealer did not respond accurately and after many days of request the 1st Opposite Party asked the Complainant to contact the 2nd Opposite Party, who is the Service Centre of Sony Laptop Company.  As per directions of the 1st Opposite Party contacted the 2nd Opposite Party on 20.06.2014 and updated the problems facing by the Complainant, the 2nd Opposite Party took the Sony Laptop the Complainant registered the complaint on the same day and the executive promised to look into the matter and rectify the same.  The 2nd Opposite Party contacted the Complainant over phone and said that the Laptop is used one the battery in the said laptop is not new one and the number of the battery is differ from the bill No.7406 and differs as 7419, and asked for another 7 days to repair.  The Complainant agreed to receive the laptop on 01.07.2014, the said laptop is under warranty period even after the service, the Complainant was facing the problems of the Laptop like hanging and also the touch pad was not responding properly.  The Complainant again contacted apprised the problems facing by the Complainant.  The 2nd Opposite Party again received the laptop on 12.07.2014 and assured the Complainant that this time the laptop will be set rite and new battery will be replaced but the 2nd Opposite Party changing their words in giving the new battery and asking the Complainant to take already used battery hence, the Complainant denied to receive the laptop from the 2nd Opposite Party.  It clearly shows that the Opposite Parties in order to cheat the Complainant had caused unjustified delay in giving warranty service to the Complainant, now the Complainant is not in trust with the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties, the 2nd Opposite Party may change the laptop or the new parts to old parts as already done by the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties.  Hence, the Complainant issued Legal Notice dt.05.08.2014.   The Opposite Party has not rectified the laptop delay even after several reminders, personal visit.  Under the circumstances, the Opposite Parties are guilty of the deficiency of service.  Hence this complaint. 

 

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  In the version pleaded that the complaint is vexatious, baseless an abuse of the process of law and filed to interest and reputation of the Opposite Parties.  All the allegations of the contention made by the Complainant which is contrary and inconsistent.  The Complainant purchased the Laptop on 15.08.2013 and use the laptop for a period of nearly 10 months with no problem whatsoever before approaching the Opposite Party No.2 on 20.06.2014.  Therefore, the allegations of manufacturing defect in the laptop are absolutely baseless and not maintainable. It has been manufactured defect in the laptop as alleged by the Complainant, the laptop would not have functioned for a single day much less the 10 months that the Complainant used the laptop before approaching the Opposite Party No.2.   The Sony India Private Limited provides a limited warranty on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.  The Complainant after using the Laptop for a period of almost 10 months without any problem whatsoever, approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 20.06.2014 with the complaint “low battery backup, mouse pad not working”.  The Laptop was thoroughly inspected by the Service Engineers and the complete OS recovery was done and the laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 21.06.2014 once the Complainant had inspected the laptop.  The second service request was received from the Complainant on 03.07.2014 alleging that the problems complained of on 20.06.2014 still persisted.  The Service Engineer replaced the click pad assembly in order to resolve the issue and the laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 04.07.2014 upon satisfaction of the Complainant as to the working of the laptop.  The problem complained of in the laptop were duly rectified in a span of a day without causing any delay.  However, the Complainant once again approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 12.07.2014 alleging the complaints of “Booting slow, USB port not working, with respect to the laptop.  The laptop was thoroughly inspected and tested by the Service Engineers.  The service engineers repeated an OS recovery on the laptop and the laptop was further tested for a while before concluding that the laptop was working perfectly.  The Complainant was informed by the representatives of Opposite Party No.2. On 14.08.2014 that the laptop was ready to be collected.  However, the Complainant has failed to collect the laptop till date.  The Hardware replacement in the laptop was carried out only at the time of the Second repair and during the first and third repair, it was merely an Operating System recovery that was carried out.  It is submitted that this OS recovery is usually done by the customer himself.  Since the Complainant in this case was unable to do so, the answering Opposite Parties were happy to provide the necessary support to the Complainant.  The Complainant is not liable to any relief.  The grievance of the Complainant have been duly addressed on every occasion by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties therefore there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant requesting to collect the laptop which is in perfect working condition and is making false and baseless allegations.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.   The Complainant, Sri.Raghavendra P.G has been filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, the affidavit of one Smt.Meena Bose has been filed.  Heard the arguments of both parties.  

5.     The points that arise for consideration are:-

  1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
  2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

 

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

 

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7.   POINT NO.1:- As looking into the complaint and also the version filed by the Opposite Parties, it is not in dispute that on 15.08.2013 the Complainant had purchased Sony SVF 15213 SNB IN5 Laptop, for a sum of Rs.39,000/-.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and produced the Cash Memo.  As looking into this document, it is clear that on 15.08.2013 the Complainant had purchased Sony SVF 15213 SNB IN5 Laptop for a sum of Rs.39,000/-.

8. It is further case of the Complainant that new laptop purchased by the Complainant was heating up very badly and use to switch off immediately could not use the Laptop for 2 minutes and felt very nervous to use the new laptop and also the Complainant was facing the problems of the laptop like hanging and also the touch pad was not responding properly.  The Complainant had immediately rushed to the 1st Opposite Party and upraised the problems facing in the new Sony Laptop.  The Opposite Party No.1 who is Authorized Dealer did not respond accurately and after many days of request the 1st Opposite Party asked the Complainant to contact the 2nd Opposite Party, who is the Service Centre of Sony Laptop Company.  As per directions of the 1st Opposite Party contacted the 2nd Opposite Party on 20.06.2014 and updated the problems facing by the Complainant, the 2nd Opposite Party took the Sony Laptop of the Complainant registered the complaint on the same day.  After 4 days, the 2nd Opposite Party contacted the Complainant over phone and said that the laptop is a used one the battery in the said laptop is not new one and the number of the battery is differ from the bill No.7406 and differs as 7419, and asked for another 7 days to repair.  The Complainant had agreed to receive the laptop on 01.07.2014, the said laptop was under warranty period even after the service, the Complainant was facing the problems of the Laptop like hanging was not responding properly. The Complainant again contacted apprised the problems facing by him with the 2nd Opposite Party.   The 2nd Opposite Party again received the laptop on 12.07.2014 and assured the Complainant that this time the laptop will be set rite and new battery will be replaced but the 2nd Opposite Party changing their words in giving the new battery and asking the Complainant to take already used battery hence, the Complainant denied to receive the laptop from the 2nd Opposite Party.  In order to substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and produced Service Job Sheet.   As looking into this document, it is clear that this Service Job Sheet is issued by the 2nd Opposite Party it is dt.20th June 2014 and Opposite Party No.2 received the laptop of the Complainant for service.   The complaint of the Complainant is that battery low backup agreed to complete format Mouse Pad Lock Pam to Check.  On 01.07.2014 the Complainant had received the laptop with an endorsement touch pad re-fixed recovery done, battery backup, checked all the function observed working fine.  By satisfying functions of the laptop, the Complainant had received the laptop from the Opposite Party No.2 and this evidence is clear that the Opposite Party No.2 render proper service as per the Job Sheet dt.20.06.2014.  The Complainant also produced Service Job Sheet issued by the Opposite Party No.2 dt.12.07.2014.  As per this Job Sheet, booting slow USB Port left not working Mouse pad not working while playing CD Freezing OS not booting agree to format battery low backup.  The Opposite Party No.2 has not rendered any service and returned the faulty laptop.

 

9. Now the defence of the Opposite Parties is that, the Complainant used Laptop for a period of 10 months with no problem whatsoever before approaching the Opposite Party No.2.  Therefore, the allegations of manufacturing defect in the laptop are absolutely baseless.   But this contention of the Opposite Parties is not proper since the Complainant clearly pleaded that laptop purchased by the Complainant found defective i.e. heating up of very badly hanging and also touch pad was not responding properly and immediately the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Party No.1 till 20th of June 2014 has not furnished the address of Opposite Party No.2, on 20.06.2014 the Opposite Party No.1 directing the Complainant to approach the Opposite Party No.2.    Further defence of the Opposite Parties is that the 2nd service request was received from the Complainant on 03.07.2014 alleging that the problems complained of on 20.06.2014 still persisted.  The Service Engineer replaced the click pad assembly in order to resolve the issue and the laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 04.07.2014 upon satisfaction of the Complainant as to the working of the laptop.  To substantiate this defence, except the interest version of the Complainant, there is no supporting evidence if really the Opposite Party No.2 had attended the complaint of the Complainant on the 2nd time i.e., 01.07.2014 as per the Job Sheet and problem was attended properly and laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 04.07.2014 with satisfaction working condition there should be relevant documents.  But such documents have not produced by the Opposite Parties.  Thereby, it is not proper to accept the defence of the Opposite Parties.  On the other hand, it is the case of the Complainant that the faulty laptop is still with the Opposite Party No.2.

10. It is further defence of the Opposite Parties the aforesaid two visits made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2, the problems complained of in the laptop were duly rectified in a span of a day without causing any delay.  However, the Complainant once again approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 12.07.2014 alleging the complaints of “Booting slow, USB port not working, with respect to the laptop.  The laptop was thoroughly inspected and tested by the Service Engineers.  The Service Engineer repeated an OS recovery on the laptop and the laptop was further tested for a while before concluding that the laptop was working perfectly.  The Complainant was informed by the representatives of Opposite Party No.2. On 14.08.2014 that the laptop was ready to be collected.  However, the Complainant has failed to collect the laptop till date.  Even to substantiate this defence also except the interested version of the Complainant.  The Opposite Parties have not placed any evidence if really the faulty laptop was properly rectified and repaired by the Opposite Parties and it was informed to the Complainant by the representatives of the Opposite Party No.2.  The Opposite Party No.2 ought to have mentioned this specific person’s name through which they have communicated the Complainant to take back the rectified and satisfactory working condition of the laptop but except the interested version have not placed any evidence.  Thereby, it is not proper to accept the defence of the Opposite Parties.  On the other hand, even as admitted by the Opposite Party No.2 the laptop is still with the Opposite Party No.2, there is any defect apparent on the laptop which is not proper to rectify by the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.1 had not properly rendered the service to get it repaired through Opposite Party No.1.  Thereby, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.   Hence, this point is held in the affirmative.  

11. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

 

ORDER

 

The Complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to replace new Laptop by receiving faulty Laptop to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony to the Complainant. 

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are granted 30 days’ from this date to comply this order. 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 31st day of December 2016)

 

 

 

    MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

 

  1. Sri.Raghavendra P.G, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

 

  1. Bill dt.15.08.2013,
  2. Service Job Sheet dt.20.06.2014,
  3. Job Service Sheet dt.01.07.2014(Discovery),
  4. Service Job Sheet dt.12.07.2014,
  5. The Legal Notice dt.05.08.2014.

 

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:

 

  1. Smt.Meena Bose, on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 by way of affidavit.

  List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

 

  1. Copy Of the Board Resolution dt.04.07.2011
  2. Copy of the Warranty Terms and Conditions
  3. Sonnet Care Letter dt.05.09.2014

 

 

 

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

 CC No.1445.2014

Filed on 16.08.2014

Disposed on 31.12.2016

 

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1445/2014                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 

PRESENT:

     Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

            PRESIDENT

                 Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                        MEMBER

                  

   

COMPLAINANT         

 

 

 

Raghavendra P.G

S/o Gopal Chetty,

No.278, Krishnan Palya,

Bangalore-560038.

 

                                              V/S

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/s 

1

Manager,

Sony India,

No.768, 100 Feet Main Road,

H.A.L.2nd Stage,

12th Main, Indiranagar,

Bangalore-560038.

 

2

Manager,

Sony Authorized Service Center, 237/240, 13th Cross, CMH Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Bangalore-580038.

 

 

ORDER

 

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

 

  1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 16.08.2014 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant has alleges that on 15.08.2013 had purchased the Sony SVF 15213 SNB IN5 Laptop, product Serial No.90100074197, for a sum of Rs.39,000/- new laptop purchased by the Complainant was heating up very badly and use to switch off immediately could not use the Laptop for 2 minutes and felt very nervous to use the new laptop and also the Complainant was facing the problems of the laptop like hanging and also the touch pad was not responding properly.  The Complainant immediately rushed to the 1st Opposite Party and upraised the problems facing in the new Sony Laptop, but there was a shock to the Complainant that, the Opposite Party who is responsible, being as an authorized Dealer did not respond accurately and after many days of request the 1st Opposite Party asked the Complainant to contact the 2nd Opposite Party, who is the Service Centre of Sony Laptop Company.  As per directions of the 1st Opposite Party contacted the 2nd Opposite Party on 20.06.2014 and updated the problems facing by the Complainant, the 2nd Opposite Party took the Sony Laptop the Complainant registered the complaint on the same day and the executive promised to look into the matter and rectify the same.  The 2nd Opposite Party contacted the Complainant over phone and said that the Laptop is used one the battery in the said laptop is not new one and the number of the battery is differ from the bill No.7406 and differs as 7419, and asked for another 7 days to repair.  The Complainant agreed to receive the laptop on 01.07.2014, the said laptop is under warranty period even after the service, the Complainant was facing the problems of the Laptop like hanging and also the touch pad was not responding properly.  The Complainant again contacted apprised the problems facing by the Complainant.  The 2nd Opposite Party again received the laptop on 12.07.2014 and assured the Complainant that this time the laptop will be set rite and new battery will be replaced but the 2nd Opposite Party changing their words in giving the new battery and asking the Complainant to take already used battery hence, the Complainant denied to receive the laptop from the 2nd Opposite Party.  It clearly shows that the Opposite Parties in order to cheat the Complainant had caused unjustified delay in giving warranty service to the Complainant, now the Complainant is not in trust with the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties, the 2nd Opposite Party may change the laptop or the new parts to old parts as already done by the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties.  Hence, the Complainant issued Legal Notice dt.05.08.2014.   The Opposite Party has not rectified the laptop delay even after several reminders, personal visit.  Under the circumstances, the Opposite Parties are guilty of the deficiency of service.  Hence this complaint. 

 

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  In the version pleaded that the complaint is vexatious, baseless an abuse of the process of law and filed to interest and reputation of the Opposite Parties.  All the allegations of the contention made by the Complainant which is contrary and inconsistent.  The Complainant purchased the Laptop on 15.08.2013 and use the laptop for a period of nearly 10 months with no problem whatsoever before approaching the Opposite Party No.2 on 20.06.2014.  Therefore, the allegations of manufacturing defect in the laptop are absolutely baseless and not maintainable. It has been manufactured defect in the laptop as alleged by the Complainant, the laptop would not have functioned for a single day much less the 10 months that the Complainant used the laptop before approaching the Opposite Party No.2.   The Sony India Private Limited provides a limited warranty on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.  The Complainant after using the Laptop for a period of almost 10 months without any problem whatsoever, approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 20.06.2014 with the complaint “low battery backup, mouse pad not working”.  The Laptop was thoroughly inspected by the Service Engineers and the complete OS recovery was done and the laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 21.06.2014 once the Complainant had inspected the laptop.  The second service request was received from the Complainant on 03.07.2014 alleging that the problems complained of on 20.06.2014 still persisted.  The Service Engineer replaced the click pad assembly in order to resolve the issue and the laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 04.07.2014 upon satisfaction of the Complainant as to the working of the laptop.  The problem complained of in the laptop were duly rectified in a span of a day without causing any delay.  However, the Complainant once again approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 12.07.2014 alleging the complaints of “Booting slow, USB port not working, with respect to the laptop.  The laptop was thoroughly inspected and tested by the Service Engineers.  The service engineers repeated an OS recovery on the laptop and the laptop was further tested for a while before concluding that the laptop was working perfectly.  The Complainant was informed by the representatives of Opposite Party No.2. On 14.08.2014 that the laptop was ready to be collected.  However, the Complainant has failed to collect the laptop till date.  The Hardware replacement in the laptop was carried out only at the time of the Second repair and during the first and third repair, it was merely an Operating System recovery that was carried out.  It is submitted that this OS recovery is usually done by the customer himself.  Since the Complainant in this case was unable to do so, the answering Opposite Parties were happy to provide the necessary support to the Complainant.  The Complainant is not liable to any relief.  The grievance of the Complainant have been duly addressed on every occasion by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties therefore there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant requesting to collect the laptop which is in perfect working condition and is making false and baseless allegations.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.   The Complainant, Sri.Raghavendra P.G has been filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, the affidavit of one Smt.Meena Bose has been filed.  Heard the arguments of both parties.  

5.     The points that arise for consideration are:-

  1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
  2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

 

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

 

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7.   POINT NO.1:- As looking into the complaint and also the version filed by the Opposite Parties, it is not in dispute that on 15.08.2013 the Complainant had purchased Sony SVF 15213 SNB IN5 Laptop, for a sum of Rs.39,000/-.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and produced the Cash Memo.  As looking into this document, it is clear that on 15.08.2013 the Complainant had purchased Sony SVF 15213 SNB IN5 Laptop for a sum of Rs.39,000/-.

8. It is further case of the Complainant that new laptop purchased by the Complainant was heating up very badly and use to switch off immediately could not use the Laptop for 2 minutes and felt very nervous to use the new laptop and also the Complainant was facing the problems of the laptop like hanging and also the touch pad was not responding properly.  The Complainant had immediately rushed to the 1st Opposite Party and upraised the problems facing in the new Sony Laptop.  The Opposite Party No.1 who is Authorized Dealer did not respond accurately and after many days of request the 1st Opposite Party asked the Complainant to contact the 2nd Opposite Party, who is the Service Centre of Sony Laptop Company.  As per directions of the 1st Opposite Party contacted the 2nd Opposite Party on 20.06.2014 and updated the problems facing by the Complainant, the 2nd Opposite Party took the Sony Laptop of the Complainant registered the complaint on the same day.  After 4 days, the 2nd Opposite Party contacted the Complainant over phone and said that the laptop is a used one the battery in the said laptop is not new one and the number of the battery is differ from the bill No.7406 and differs as 7419, and asked for another 7 days to repair.  The Complainant had agreed to receive the laptop on 01.07.2014, the said laptop was under warranty period even after the service, the Complainant was facing the problems of the Laptop like hanging was not responding properly. The Complainant again contacted apprised the problems facing by him with the 2nd Opposite Party.   The 2nd Opposite Party again received the laptop on 12.07.2014 and assured the Complainant that this time the laptop will be set rite and new battery will be replaced but the 2nd Opposite Party changing their words in giving the new battery and asking the Complainant to take already used battery hence, the Complainant denied to receive the laptop from the 2nd Opposite Party.  In order to substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and produced Service Job Sheet.   As looking into this document, it is clear that this Service Job Sheet is issued by the 2nd Opposite Party it is dt.20th June 2014 and Opposite Party No.2 received the laptop of the Complainant for service.   The complaint of the Complainant is that battery low backup agreed to complete format Mouse Pad Lock Pam to Check.  On 01.07.2014 the Complainant had received the laptop with an endorsement touch pad re-fixed recovery done, battery backup, checked all the function observed working fine.  By satisfying functions of the laptop, the Complainant had received the laptop from the Opposite Party No.2 and this evidence is clear that the Opposite Party No.2 render proper service as per the Job Sheet dt.20.06.2014.  The Complainant also produced Service Job Sheet issued by the Opposite Party No.2 dt.12.07.2014.  As per this Job Sheet, booting slow USB Port left not working Mouse pad not working while playing CD Freezing OS not booting agree to format battery low backup.  The Opposite Party No.2 has not rendered any service and returned the faulty laptop.

 

9. Now the defence of the Opposite Parties is that, the Complainant used Laptop for a period of 10 months with no problem whatsoever before approaching the Opposite Party No.2.  Therefore, the allegations of manufacturing defect in the laptop are absolutely baseless.   But this contention of the Opposite Parties is not proper since the Complainant clearly pleaded that laptop purchased by the Complainant found defective i.e. heating up of very badly hanging and also touch pad was not responding properly and immediately the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Party No.1 till 20th of June 2014 has not furnished the address of Opposite Party No.2, on 20.06.2014 the Opposite Party No.1 directing the Complainant to approach the Opposite Party No.2.    Further defence of the Opposite Parties is that the 2nd service request was received from the Complainant on 03.07.2014 alleging that the problems complained of on 20.06.2014 still persisted.  The Service Engineer replaced the click pad assembly in order to resolve the issue and the laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 04.07.2014 upon satisfaction of the Complainant as to the working of the laptop.  To substantiate this defence, except the interest version of the Complainant, there is no supporting evidence if really the Opposite Party No.2 had attended the complaint of the Complainant on the 2nd time i.e., 01.07.2014 as per the Job Sheet and problem was attended properly and laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 04.07.2014 with satisfaction working condition there should be relevant documents.  But such documents have not produced by the Opposite Parties.  Thereby, it is not proper to accept the defence of the Opposite Parties.  On the other hand, it is the case of the Complainant that the faulty laptop is still with the Opposite Party No.2.

10. It is further defence of the Opposite Parties the aforesaid two visits made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2, the problems complained of in the laptop were duly rectified in a span of a day without causing any delay.  However, the Complainant once again approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 12.07.2014 alleging the complaints of “Booting slow, USB port not working, with respect to the laptop.  The laptop was thoroughly inspected and tested by the Service Engineers.  The Service Engineer repeated an OS recovery on the laptop and the laptop was further tested for a while before concluding that the laptop was working perfectly.  The Complainant was informed by the representatives of Opposite Party No.2. On 14.08.2014 that the laptop was ready to be collected.  However, the Complainant has failed to collect the laptop till date.  Even to substantiate this defence also except the interested version of the Complainant.  The Opposite Parties have not placed any evidence if really the faulty laptop was properly rectified and repaired by the Opposite Parties and it was informed to the Complainant by the representatives of the Opposite Party No.2.  The Opposite Party No.2 ought to have mentioned this specific person’s name through which they have communicated the Complainant to take back the rectified and satisfactory working condition of the laptop but except the interested version have not placed any evidence.  Thereby, it is not proper to accept the defence of the Opposite Parties.  On the other hand, even as admitted by the Opposite Party No.2 the laptop is still with the Opposite Party No.2, there is any defect apparent on the laptop which is not proper to rectify by the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.1 had not properly rendered the service to get it repaired through Opposite Party No.1.  Thereby, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.   Hence, this point is held in the affirmative.  

11. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

 

ORDER

 

The Complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to replace new Laptop by receiving faulty Laptop to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony to the Complainant. 

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are granted 30 days’ from this date to comply this order. 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 31st day of December 2016)

 

 

 

    MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

 

  1. Sri.Raghavendra P.G, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

 

  1. Bill dt.15.08.2013,
  2. Service Job Sheet dt.20.06.2014,
  3. Job Service Sheet dt.01.07.2014(Discovery),
  4. Service Job Sheet dt.12.07.2014,
  5. The Legal Notice dt.05.08.2014.

 

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:

 

  1. Smt.Meena Bose, on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 by way of affidavit.

  List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

 

  1. Copy Of the Board Resolution dt.04.07.2011
  2. Copy of the Warranty Terms and Conditions
  3. Sonnet Care Letter dt.05.09.2014

 

 

 

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT    

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. H.S.RAMAKRISHNA]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. L MAMATHA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.