CC No.1173.2016

Filed on 26.08.2016

Disposed on.16.04.2018

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF APRIL 2018

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1173/2016

PRESENT:

Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

        PRESIDENT

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

                      MEMBER

                                       V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 26.08.2016 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.22,340/- with interest and other reliefs. 

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

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that on 17.05.2016, the Opposite Parties supplied Sony Tab Model-
SGPT 1131 N/s under Invoice No.11156317 dt.17.05.2016, ID.No.53095270 PO Reference 7523A-23 D23 of Value Rs.14,993/-.   The Opposite Party promised the said devise to the satisfaction of the Complainant.  Earlier also the Complainant had purchased Tablet in the Year 2013, the said Table was also did not work.  The Complainant visited the service centre at Rajajinagar above referred and the Complainant also under taken to pay the repair charges.  But the said service centre told that it cannot be repaired and advised the Complainant to purchase a new piece of latest model with 25% discount.  On the assurance given by the Opposite Party purchased the above Table on 17.05.2016, even that was an old model and it was not in accordance with promise made by the Opposite Party.  This Tablet also did not work, the Complainant went to the Service Center, even after service it was not working and the Complainant and his daughter suffered a loss and thereby they have lost saved items in the tablet.  This fact was brought to the Opposite Party through telephonic talk, the Opposite Party agreed to replace the same.  But the Opposite Party did not kept up their promise.  Again the Complainant sent E-Mail on 31^st May 2016 to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party did not reply.    Again on 3^rd June 2016 E-Mail was sent by the Complainant.   Ultimately, on 25.06.2016, 3 pages letter was sent to the Opposite Party, which they have acknowledged.  But they did not comply.  Hence, the Complainant has no option but to cause the legal notice on 15.07.2015.  The Opposite Party is liable to refund the amount paid by the Complainant of Rs.14,993/- towards the said Tablet.  The Complainant has corresponded so many times and has spent money.  The Complainant suffered mental agony which is more than Rs.5,000/-, which the Opposite Party have to make good the same to the Complainant.   The Opposite Party are liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a, as per trade usage and custom.  Hence this complaint.

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 put their appearance through their counsel and filed their common version.  In the version pleaded that the Opposite Party No.1 is a Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its office available at, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi-110044.  The Opposite Party No.2 is the Regional Office of the Opposite Party No.1 and therefore they are one and same entity, whereas the Opposite Party No.3 with the Authorized Service Centre of the Opposite Party No.1 who has authorized Opposite Party No.1 to represent them.  The present reply is being signed on behalf of the Opposite Party by Ms.Meena Bose, who has been authorized by Sony India Private Limited.  At the outset, each and every averment, statement, allegation, and contention made by the Complainant which is contrary and inconsistent to what has been stated in the present written Statement herein is denied.  In the Year 2013 the Complainant had purchased on Sony tablet from the Opposite Parties.  He used the same for three years without any difficulty.  The said Tablet carried the warranty of one year from the date of purchase.   That on 02.03.2016 the Complainant approached the service centre of the Opposite Party i.e., Opposite Party No.3 with a service request for the symptoms “No Power”.  The service Engineers at the service centre duly inspected the said Tablet vide Job Sheet No.J60538911 and found that due to excessive wear and tear, it may not be economical for the customer/Complainant to carry out the repair in the tablet and therefore the Complainant was offered an alternative solution whereby he was given a new tablet at 25% discount.  The Complainant readily agreed for the same and a new Tablet bearing Model No.SGPT11IN/S Serial No.0004282 was provided to the Complainant on 17.05.2016 by the Opposite Parties.  On 06.06.2016 the Complainant again approached the Service Center of Opposite Party citing booting problem in the new Tablet. The Engineers at the service centre duly examined the said Tab vide Job Sheet No.J60749984 no problem in product was found and the software was updated for the sake of Complainant’s satisfaction.  The tablet was found to be working fine as per its specification.  However, tablet was found to be working fine as per its specification.  However, the Complainant was adamant for the replacement of the Product, which was not possible as no defect was found in the product.  The said Tablet of the Complainant was lying with the Opposite Party N.3 in their service station in proper working condition.  However despite intimation the Complainant has failed to collect the same.   Therefore, as per the repair service terms & conditions, the Complainant is liable to pay keeping charges @ Rs.50/- per day to the Complainant.  The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been only filed with malafide intention, just for harassing the Opposite Parties.  The complaint is neither maintainable in the eyes of law nor on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine and prays to dismiss the complaint.    
4. The Complainant, Mr.Sachin Gupta has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party, the affidavit of one Ms.Meena Bose has been filed.  Heard arguments of both sides.

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved 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)         :-  Negative

                   POINT (2)         :-  As per the final Order

REASONS

7.   POINT NO.1:-   As looking into the allegations made in the complaint and also the version filed by the Opposite Parties, it is not in dispute that the Complainant has purchased Tablet in the Year 2013, the said Table was also did not work.    The Complainant also undertaken to pay the repair charges.  But the said service centre told that it cannot be repaired and advised the Complainant to purchase a new piece of latest model with 25% discount.  On the assurance given by the Opposite Party, the Complainant on 17.05.2016 purchased the Sony Tab Model SGPT 1131 for a sum of Rs.14,993/-.  Further to substantiate this fact, the Complainant has filed his affidavit, in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Tax Invoice.  As looking into this document, which is dt.17.05.2016, the Complainant has purchased the Sony Tab Model SGPT 1131IN/S(TABLET PC) 4905524824520)(SILVER) for a sum of Rs.14,993/-.  This evidence of the Complainant has not been denied or disputed by the Opposite Parties.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that on 17.05.2016 the Complainant has purchased Sony Tablet Model SGPT 1131 under Invoice No.11156317 for a sum of Rs.14,993/-.
8. It is further case of the Complainant on the assurance given by the Opposite Party, purchased the above Tablet on 17.05.2016, even that was an old model and it was not in accordance with promise made by the Opposite Party.  This Tablet also did not work, the Complainant went to the Service Center, even after service it was not working and the Complainant and his daughter suffered a lot.  This fact was brought to the Opposite Parties through telephonic talk, the Opposite Party agreed to replace the same.  But the Opposite Party did not kept up their promise.  Again the Complainant sent E-Mail on 31^st May 2016 to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party did not reply.    Again on 3^rd June 2016 and also addressed a letter on 25.06.2016, but they did not comply.  Hence,  the complainant issued Legal Notice July 2016.  Even though the Opposite Parties received the Legal Notice and they have not comply with the demand nor reply the Legal Notice.  To substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the copy of the email and also the letter dt.25.06.2016 addressed by the Complainant.  Except the emails and the letter the Complainant has not placed any evidence to show that the Tablet was purchased by him from the Opposite Party is defective.  But even as looking into the letter addressed by the Complainant, it is very clear that the Opposite Parties rendered proper service to the Complainant. On the other hand, again he found defective.  In that event, the Complainant ought to have produced the Job Cards but he has not produced any such Job Cards. 

9. The defence of the Opposite Parties is that on 06.06.2016 the Complainant again approached the Service Center of Opposite Party citing booting problem and request for the symptoms “No Power”.  The service Engineers at the service centre duly examined the said Tablet vide Job Sheet No.J60538911 and no problem in product was found and the software was updated for the sake of Complainant’s satisfaction.  The tablet was found to be working fine as per its specification.  However, tablet was adamant for the replacement of the Product, which was not possible as no defect was found in the product.  The said Tablet of the Complainant was lying with the Opposite Party N.3.  The Complainant has failed to collect the same.  To substantiate this defence, Ms.Meena Bose, Authorized Signatory of the 1^st Opposite Party, in her sworn testimony, she has reiterated the same.  This evidence of the Opposite Party has not been denied by the Complainant.  Therefore, it is on the burden of the Complainant to establish that there is a defect in the Sony Tablet which was purchased by the Complainant with the Opposite Party, even after proper service given by the Opposite Party No.2.  As stated earlier, the Complainant has not placed any evidence before the Court.  To establish that there is a defect in the Tablet and the Tablet is not working satisfactorily, thereby, it is not proper to accept the contention of the Complainant.  On the other hand, it is proper to accept the defence taken by the Opposite Parties.  Therefore, the Complainant had fails to prove that there is a deficiency of service or unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Parties.   Hence, we answer point No.1 in Negative. 

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

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

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, 16^th day of April 2018).

      MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Mr.Sachin Gupta, who being the Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Under Invoice No.11156317 dt.17.05.2016, ID.No.53095270 PO Reference 7523A-23 D23 of Value Rs.14,993/-.
2. Copy of the E-mail dt.31.05.2016, 03.06.2016.
3. Copy of the letter dt.25.06.2016 in 3 pages.
4. Copy of the Legal Notice dt.15.07.2015.
5. Postal receipt.
6. Acknowledgement for having received the legal Notice.
7. Returned postal cover and acknowledgement.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Ms.Meena Bose, Authorized Signatory of 1^st Opposite Party 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 Repair Service terms and conditions.

MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT