THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 462/2014
Dated this the 10th day of August 2017
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Beena Joseph, Member:
The petition was filed on 17.09.2014. The brief facts of the complaint is that he had purchased Sony Audio System which was not having Karoke performance as promised by the opposite party.
In the petition complainant alleges that he had purchased an audio system of Sony MHC V6D on 09.09.2014 from the opposite party of his Karaoke purpose. While purchasing the above system petitioner demanded for karoke performance with mike, then the opposite party informed that, they have no mike so that they could not show the Karaoke performance but they offered that, this is the new system available in the market which having Karaoke facilities. Believing the assurance of opposite party (salesman) petitioner purchased the above audio system by spending Rs.26900/- without checking the Karaoke performance. When it was brought to the house and connected with mike and checked the Karaoke performance, it is understood that the performance of the Karaoke is very poor, mike sound is having only one volume nob and three level free set eco buttons. When the audio was playing the equalizer effects is not getting in the mike sound. The mike was not getting voice clarity so that it cannot be used for Karaoke purpose. Later petitioner preferred complaint on 10.09.14 to the show room authorities they offered to provide a demonstrator for setting the system. But nobody was send by the opposite party. So on 13.09.14 petitioner approached the showroom with his own mike and tested with the system then he obtained the same performance in his system. Then the opposite party advised that, it was caused because of heavy mike. Then the complainant stated that he could not found bass treble equalizer adjustments in the mike sound. Then only the petitioner understood that these type of adjustments not available in this system. So that the complainant demanded to the second opposite party to take back the system and to return the amount, which was declined by the opposite party stating that, they are conducting online billing on the date of purchase and warranty issued in his name, so that they are not able to take back the product. Later complainant issued mail to the Sony company demanding to give back the money because the system which was given to him not having Karaoke performance as he demanded. But there was no response from the opposite party which shows that the opposite party sold the product suppressing the real facts from the customers, which caused mental agony and loss to the petitioner. Therefore petitioner claims Rs.27000/- from the opposite party as the price of the product. Hence this complaint.
Notice issued to both parties, both of them appeared. 1st and 2nd opposite party filed version.
Second opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. They are admitting the purchase of the complainant a Sony home theatre system model number MHC V6 D on 09.09.14 from 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party is the authorized dealer of 2nd opposite party. After purchase complainant registered a complaint on 2nd opposite party on 16.09.14, that is after using said set for a week with the complaint that was an irritating noise when the mike is connected in the set. Pursuant to this service engineer was deputed by 2nd opposite party and set was inspected and upon inspection, no defect was found in the system and same was working in perfect condition to the best of its features and specification. It is submitted that complainant was not satisfied as there was no mike sound control feature available. It was purchased by the complainant after proper checking and satisfaction. The allegation regarding the manufacturing defect of the set is baseless and false. There had been any manufacturing defect in the set; it would not have been function for a single day. Complainant has been adamant to get refund of Rs.26900/- being paid by him towards the purchase of set, which is contrary to the warranty terms. As per warranty terms, it is the sole discretion of the opposite parties whether it provide repair or exchange the set. Therefore the above complaint has been filed merely to harass the opposite party. More over the complaint filed without any cause and it is an attempt to malign the reputation of Sony India Pvt. Ltd and to make illegal gains. So the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him. The complainant is misusing the provisions of Law to gain unlawful advantage. Therefore it is prayed that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
In this matter complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 marked. Ext.A1 is the bill of the set, Ext.A2 warranty card, Ext.A3 is the Brochures of Sony, Ext.A4 is the E-mail complaint of the petitioner, and Ext.A5 is the e-mail reply of the opposite party. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the part of the opposite parties.
On the basis of contrary versions following issues were framed.
- Is there any manufacturing defect to the product purchased by the complainant from the opposite party?
- Is there any service deficiency or illegal trade practice adopted by opposite party?
- If yes, what are the reliefs?
In this matter purchase of Sony home theatre by the complainant from the opposite party on 09.09.2014 is admitted by the parties herein. The grievance of the complainant is that he needs a system with having Karaoke facilities. And his allegation is that there was no mike available at the time of purchase so that he could not test it from the shop. He had purchased the above system under the impression that Karaoke programmes can be played with mike in the system. He believed so because of the representation of the sales man. The complainant has produced Ext.A3 series is the brochures of Sony showing its features and he has no dispute with respect to the items shown in the brochures. As per Ext. A3(a) MHC V6 B system having following features.
- 1440 watts RMS
- Sony Dal app
- Karaoke function and foot mode
- Party chain mode
- NFc one touch listening
- DJ control/effects and 50 LED patterns.
Regarding these features there is no dispute between the parties. Complainant’s grievance is that when he is using mike for Karaoke, bass/treble equalizer adjustments were not available. Nowhere in the Ext.A1 bill or in the Ext.A3 brochures states anything regarding the bass, treble equalizer. This is quiet absent in the brochures. If such facilities are required by the complainant he ought to have checked the system prior to purchase. Consumer should be vigilant during the time of purchase of a product. If consumer is so particular above said features of the system, he has to search for another shop or alternate brand available in the market. It is the boundan duty of the customer to test the functions of the product prior to purchase. And after due satisfaction of the product only he needs to purchase it. In this matter complainant has no case that there was manufacturing defect to the product. The complaints of the petitioner not amounting to a manufacturing defect also. In such circumstances the warranty clause cannot be invoked in this matter. So there is no merit in the above complaint.
In the result the petition is dismissed without cost.
Dated this 10th day of August 2017.
Date of filing: 17.09.2014.
SD/-MEMBER SD/- PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. The cash bill of the set.
A2. Warranty card
A3.The Brochures of Sony.
A4. E-mail complaint of the petitioner.
A5.The E-mail reply of the opposite party.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party;
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.Safeeq.M.P. (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
