BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.39/2011

Dated this the 28^th day of April 2015.

S.Kothandaraman, S/o.K.Ravindiran

Moogambiga Enclave, 30, Chellan nagar

Puducherry-11.                                                                    ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. Sri Ganesh Electronics, Sony World

    A Proprietorship Concern,

    No.261, Jawaharlal Nehru Street,

    Puducherry,  rep. by its Proprietor

2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

    A Private Limited Company,

    No.33/13, Shafee Mohammed Road,

    Greams Road, Chennai -600 006.

3. Max Electronics,

    Proprietorship Concern,

    149, Needarajappayyar Street,

    Puducherry-1.                                                                   ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Tvl. L.Sathis, N. Krishnamurthy, T.Praveen and V. Veeraragavan,  Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:  

 OP1 – Thiru S. Vimal Advocate

                                                             OP2 – Thiru S.K. Arunachalam, Advocate

                                                             OP3 – Thiru A. Abdul Rachide, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

This is a complaint praying to direct the opposite parties:

1. To refund a sum of Rs.20,400/- which is the value of the music system;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, trauma, stress and duress suffered by the complainant because of their defective music system followed by their negligent and deficient services;
3. to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the Complaint.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant herein had purchased Sony Brand mini Hi Fi system (Music system) from the first opposite party for a sum of Rs.20,400- vide invoice dated 25.03.2006 with one year warranty.    The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the said music system. As advised by the first opposite party, the complainant replaced the then existing stabilizer with the "V guard digital Stabilizer" for trouble free service.  Even before the expiry of warranty period, the music system developed problem and it was completely dead and could not even be started.  The third opposite party, the authorised service agent, attended the problem and handover it to the complainant with the remarks that the system got hanged and which the third opposite claimed to be released.  Once again the system became dead for the second time within three weeks of its repair.  The complainant once again gave it to the third opposite party during the second week of March 2007 and the same was returned after repair stating that they have replaced some spare in the system.

3.         During the second week of April 2007 a few days of its service, the system once again became dead.  The complainant once again took the music system to third opposite party for the third time.  The system was returned within two days claimed to have repaired the system.  But the system became dysfunctional within few minutes of its operation.  The complainant took the system for fourth time to third opposite party on the very next day.  The system was kept in their custody for nearly one month and thereafter one Mr.Senthilkumar, Service Engineer, accompanied the complainant to his house and did the reinstallation of the system but the system did not work even before the service engineer.  As advised by Mr.Senthilkumar, the complainant took the stabilizer to M/s.Mani Electronics, Puducherry, the supplier of the stabilizer and tested the same and confirmed that the stabilizer to be in perfect working condition.  The opposite parties 1 and 3 informed the complainant that they will send the system to Chennai for thorough scrutiny and will return the same in about two weeks time. After servicing the system for the fourth time, the third opposite party returned the system on third week of May 2007.   

4.         It is further submitted by the complainant that the music system worked for about a month but it once again went out of order.  The complainant once again took the music system to the third opposite party on 12.04.2008, the third party received the same. When the complainant contacted the third opposite party on 21.04.2008, it was informed that board has to be replaced which will cost Rs.8000/-.  After repeated reminders, the third opposite party agreed to replace the board at free of cost.  After replacing the board, it was handed over to the complainant on 24.01.2009 and the delivery note shown the cost of board as Rs.2826/- instead of Rs.8000/- as stated by the third opposite party.  The music system was working satisfactorily but this time an altogether a different problem was encountered by the complainant.  The music system could not play all the DVDs as it did earlier.  Most of the DVDs are rejected under the statement "could not be played".  The complainant wrote number of letters dated 28.04.2008, 23.06.2008, 28.06.2008, 14.07.2009, 08.09.2008, 28.10.2008 and 24.08.2009 trying to convince the opposite parties to repair the music system or replace the one with new order at the least refund the money but all his efforts ended in vain.  The substandard quality of the music system as well the negligent and deficient service provided by the opposite parties is writ large.  The opposite parties have not come forward to replace the board at their cost and handed over the music system which they were bound to do since the system developed complication well within the warranty period.  The complainant already issued legal notice on 21.01.2010.  Though the said notice was received by the opposite parties, there was no response from them. Hence this complaint.

5.         The reply version of the first opposite party is as follows:

The complaint is not maintainable is neither maintainable in law nor on facts.  The complaint is barred by limitation. This opposite party denies all the allegations made out in the reply except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version. This opposite party has sold the product of the second opposite party in an as is where form supplied to it by the manufacturer alongwith warranty card supplied by them.  The quality of the product/music system purchased by the complainant is assured and warranted by the manufacturer/2^nd opposite party, the first opposite party being a dealer cannot be made liable to for any wrongs alleged by the complainant with the product. The complaint under reply is absolutely not maintainable under law as against them as per the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala State commission in K.S.K. Mohammed Vs. Mohanan Nair & Nair-III(2007) CPJ 59,  for the manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the dealer cannot be held liable.  Further, under section 234 of the Indian Contract Act, when the manufacturer has given the exclusive warranty for the product supplied, the agent/dealer cannot be held liable.  The complaint is not maintainable as is barred by limitation. Hence pray to dismiss the complaint.

6.         The reply version of the second opposite party is as follows:

The complaint filed by the complainant is vexatious, baseless and is more of an abuse of the process of law. Each and every averment, statement allegation and contention made by the complainant which is contrary and inconsistent.   The dealer and the authorised service centre of this opposite party are individual entities and have not relationship whatsoever.   This opposite party provides a warranty on its products and the liability of this opposite party strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty extended by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. The warranty provided by this opposite party is that  "Sony India Pvt. Ltd., warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects for a period indicated on the cover,  from the time of its original purchase.  This non-transferable warranty is only for you, the first end user.  If during this period of warranty the product proves to be defective due to improper material or workmanship, Sony Service Centres/Authorised Service Centres will repair the product free of charge subject to the terms and conditions mentioned below".

7.         This opposite party is liable to only repair the product and not liable to replace the product without manufacturing defect. The complainant has failed to annex any expert report of an independent expert as defined under section 2(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regard to any alleged defect in the subject music system.  It is held by the Hon'ble Kerala State Commission  in the matter of Sabeena Cycle Emporium Chennakhaada Vs.Thajes Ravi M.R. Pancha villa vedar Ezkhone PO (1992) I CPJ  97, that the Forum is bound to determine this fact on the basis of evidence by way of expert opinion and the same was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble State Commission of West Bengal and Hon'ble State Commission of Delhi.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.  Whenever the complainant approached this opposite party, it provided the best of its service to the complainant.   

8.         It is further submitted by this opposite party that the authorised service centre repaired the music system at free of cost and delivered to the complainant.  This opposite party is not aware of any other complaint raised by the complainant after handing over the system to the complainant on 24.01.2009.  After receipt of notice from this Forum, the Service Engineer visited the complainant and inspected the music system.  Some defects were found and the same was attended at the Chennai service centre and even today the music system was absolutely fine and is lying with the service centre. The electronic products having a small life span and are bound to develop technical defects with time.  Therefore, this opposite party cannot provide a lifelong warranty on its products and therefore provides only a limited period warranty and the product of the complainant is certainly beyond the purview of warranty was the same was purchased in 2006.  Therefore the complainant is liable to pay for the repair charges, however, on a goodwill gesture, the opposite party has not charged any repair charges. It is held in the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission that the terms of warranty were binding on the parties and that the liability undertaken in contract between parties should be limited to extent undertaken.  No legal notice or representations were received by this opposite party as alleged in the complaint.  The complaint of the complainant were duly and promptly attended by the opposite party and furthermore the complainant has not adduced any reliable evidence to show the loss suffered by him due to the act of this opposite party, hence the complainant is  not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. Hence pray to dismiss the complaint.

9.         The reply version of the third opposite party is as follows:

            This opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine.  This opposite party is only service agencies to the second opposite party and he has no way responsible for the claims of the complainant.  It is admitted in the reply version that the complainant approached this opposite in the month of February 2007, March 2007, April 2007 and May 2007 and got services with him.   The complainant only complaint about the defect of the system only in the month of April 2008 and made services and handed over to the complainant as instructed by the second opposite party with minimum charges.  Eventhough it made after the warranty period is over on the humanity ground.  The complainant without any reason often call the service personal to his house and made some complaint, when the service personal operate the music system it is perfectly functioning.  On 26.06.2011, when the complainant made complaint, this opposite party took the system, carefully examined and installed new software and informed the complainant to take back the music system.  But the complainant refused to take back the system and demanded huge amount as compensation. There is no merit in the complaint. Hence pray to dismiss the complaint with cost.

 10.      On the side of the complainant, Exs.C1 to C12 marked on consent. On the side of the opposite parties, Ex.R1 and R2 marked on consent.

11.       Points for determination are :

1. Whether the Complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

12.       Point No.1:

            The complainant purchased one Mini Hi-Fi system-MHC-GNZ8D from the first opposite party on 25.03.2006 for valid consideration of Rs.20,400/- vide Ex.C1.  The second opposite party is the manufacturer and the third opposite party is the service provider.  Hence the complainant is the consumer for the opposite parties as per the Consumer Protection Act.

13.       Point No.2:

            We have perused the complaint, Exs.C1 to C12, reply version of the opposite parties and Exs.R1 and R2 filed by the second opposite party.  No oral evidence adduced by the both the parties.  The case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased one Mini Hi-Fi system-MHC-GNZ8D from the first opposite party on 25.03.2006 for Rs.20,400/-.  The said product was manufactured by the second opposite party and it was duly serviced by the third opposite party as authorised service agent of the first and second opposite parties.  The allegation submitted by the complainant in the Ex.C5 is that before completion of one year of purchase i.e. within the guarantee period there was a problem in the Hi Fi system during the month of February 2007 and approached the third opposite party for service.  The problem was attended by the third opposite party on the advice of the first opposite party and handed over to the complainant. The further allegation of the complainant is that the said system went out of order on second time after three weeks span of time.  The complainant submits that he approached the third opposite party for service.  During that time the third opposite party replaced the components and handed over the system to the complainant.  Further submits that within few days of time the complainant approached the third opposite party as third time for the repeated faults and it was rectified within two days.  After that at fourth time the complainant approached the third opposite party for rectifying the out of orders in the Hi Fi system.  The further plea of the complainant is that he approached the third opposite party and requested them to send the system to the second opposite party for observation and finally the system was handed over to the complainant after two weeks.

14.       The complainant relied the job sheet Ex.C4 dated 12.04.2008 of the third opposite party having complaint with "Tray not open" and the remarks of "Please wait in display to be checked/ DVD inside two DVD disc".  The complainant paid Rs.562/- after getting discount of Rs.4304.05 for the components and the service and received the system in working condition.

15.       The complainant sent letters Exs.C5, C6, C7, C9, C11 on 28.04.2008, 23.06.2008, 14.07.2008, 08.09.2008 and 24.08.2009 respectively to the opposite parties and Ex.C10 dated 28.10.2008 to the second opposite party narrating the events of repairs and demanded to replace the Hi-Fe system.  The first opposite party has sent Ex.C8 dated 28.06.2008 for the reply for Ex.C6 stating their inability for replacing the system as a policy of any product which is serviceable and out of warranty products can be serviced on chargeable basis only. 

16.       Now the question before the Forum is whether the complainant approached the opposite parties to rectify the repairs in Hi-Fi system within warranty period.  From the records, it is clear that the complainant approached the third opposite party only on 12.04.2008 vide Ex.C4.  The submission made in the Ex.C5 dated 28.04.2008 not supported by any piece of evidence.  The opposite parties also denied the same.  As per the statement made by the complainant, the period of guarantee ended on 25.03.2007.  But the complainant approached first time the third opposite party as per records only on 12.04.2008.  Therefore the allegation made by the complainant that the defect occurred during the guarantee period is ruled out.  The next question is whether the Hi-Fi system having manufacturing defects.  To that effect the complainant has not adduced any valid evidence or any expert opinion.

17.       As per the available record, the complainant relied only the job sheet Ex.C4, dated 12.04.2008 with the complaint that "Tray not open".  That too also attended by the third opposite party with special discount by paying Rs.562/- as already discussed.  Subsequently the complainant approached the opposite parties to rectify the recurring defects time to time.  The complainant sent Ex.C5, C6, C7, C9, C11 to the first opposite party and Ex.C10 to the second opposite party requesting them to rectify the recurring defects occurred even after the service made by the third opposite party.  Except Ex.C8, dated 28.06.2008 sent by the first opposite party,  no reply sent by the opposite parties and not resolved the problem persist in the system.  The complaint sent Ex.C12 the lawyer notice, dated 21.01.2011, after a long period.  The complainant has not filed any proof that the Ex.C12 was served on opposite parties.  We ascertain from the exhibits, it is clear that there is some problem persists in the Hi-Fi system.  The complainant continuously approached the opposite parties for rectifying the defects, but ended in vain.  The complainant requested the first opposite party in Ex.C11 to replace the board with master board which can play all the DVDs as performed by the original system or to replace the set.

18.       It is evident from the records the warranty lapsed before the date of Ex.C4 and the complainant has not filed any proof or expert report that the system having manufacturing defect.  From the exhibits it is evident that the system having recurring defects and the complainant suffered injury and loss due to the repairs and not used system for long time.  The opposite parties have not rendered the best service to the complainant. The purpose for which the system purchased is not fulfilled.  To meet the ends of justice, we are inclined to give direction to the opposite parties to rectify the system to the satisfaction of the complainant with new Master board free of cost.  In view of the deficiency in service attributed by the opposite parties,  the injuries and sufferings of the complainant should be compensated by the opposite parties jointly and severally.  The decision relied by the first opposite party is not relevant to this case being deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is entitled for the relief and the opposite parties are liable for the same.

19.       Point No.3:   

            In view of the decision taken in point no.2, this complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed:

1. To rectify the defects and replace the master board of the Hi-Fi system
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings. 

Dated this the 28^th day of April 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS WITNESS:  Nil

OPPOSITE PARTY S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS  EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY S EXHIBITS:

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER