Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1023/2016

Rajan Badhwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Gupta

17 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1023/2016
Date of Institution	:	23/11/2016
Date of Decision	:	17/01/2018

 

Rajan Badhwar s/o Sh. Bipan Chander Badhwar r/o House No.1230, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, presently working as Assistant General Manager, PPFG Department, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Sony India Private Limited, registered Office : A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.     Sony Center, ACKS Inc., SCO No.43-44, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

3.     Modern AKM Electronics Private Limited, SCO No.126-127, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Manager.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vishal Gupta, Counsel for complainant
	:	None for OPs.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 17.10.2013, the complainant purchased one Sony Laptop , manufactured by OP-1, from OP-2 for an amount of Rs.76,800/-. The laptop developed some defect, therefore, the complainant took the same to OP-3 i.e. authorised service centre on 26.7.2016 and upon inspection it was found that the battery needs to be replaced. The complainant made payment of Rs.3,000/-  towards new battery vide bill dated 26.7.2016 and he was assured that the battery would be replaced with a new one. After a few days, when the complainant enquired from OP-3 about replacement of battery, it informed that the battery of the laptop is not available, therefore, the same could not be replaced. The complainant called the toll free number and also sent an email on 20.8.2016 narrating the problem faced by him, however, the OPs vide email dated 6.9.2016, showed their inability to comply with the request for service of the laptop and he was asked to collect the laptop from OP-3. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs in their written statement have not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been averred that the battery in question needed replacement due to excessive usage by the complainant.  Fresh battery was ordered by the OPs, but, due to short supply, the same could not be arranged. Therefore, OP-3 returned the laptop in the way it was brought to the service centre. It has been denied that there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the laptop in question.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
6.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased one laptop for an amount of Rs.76,800/- on 17.10.2013. Annexure C-2 is the warranty card of the said laptop. As per Annexure C-3, the laptop in question was having problem of low battery back-up, hence it was submitted to OP-3 for necessary repairs.  For the purpose of repair, the OPs asked the complainant to deposit Rs.3,000/- for the replacement of the battery of the laptop in question which was deposited by him on 26.7.2016 vide Annexure C-4. Subsequently, the OPs after taking a long period of approximately two months, informed the complainant vide Annexure C-7 on 6.9.2016 that they were having difficulty in getting necessary part (battery) and they showed their inability to comply with the request of the complainant for the service of the laptop in the form of replacement of the battery and further requested the complainant to collect the laptop from the service centre without service. 
7.         A perusal of the documents on record reveals that the complainant at no stage asked for the necessary repairs without cost. On the direction of the OPs only, the complainant readily paid Rs.3,000/- for the replacement of the new battery of the laptop in question, but, it were the OPs only who, after a long period of approximately two months, replied in the form of refusal for the necessary repairs despite charging for the same in advance. We feel that it is for the OPs only to satisfy their consumers, as and when required, by providing proper services, but, in the present case, the unethical approach of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service which certainly has harassed the complainant physically as well as mentally.  The reason of non-availability of the part is not a good ground for the OPs for non-replacement of the battery for which they charged the requisite amount in advance.  It is for the OPs to maintain the supply of spare parts of the gadgets sold by them for approximately at least ten years, more specifically in the present case, since the value of the gadget is Rs.76,800/-. Due to non-replacement of the battery, the complainant could not use the laptop in question and the same is lying defunct till date.  Hence, the complainant not only suffered physical and mental harassment, but, also pecuniary loss due to the fault of the OPs. Since the laptop in question was used by the complainant for a period of three years without any problem, therefore, we are of the view that the prayer of the complainant seeking refund of the full amount of Rs.76,800/- cannot be acceded to.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the 50% depreciated invoice value of the laptop in question i.e. Rs.38,400/- to the complainant. The complainant shall, however, return the laptop in question to the OPs.
2. To pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainants Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
17/01/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member