BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 8th day of March 2018
Filed on : 03-07-2015
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.440/2015
Between
Abhilash M.P, : Complainant
Mundakkal, Memugham, (party-in-person)
Maneed P.O.,
And
1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
A-31.Mohan Co-operative (1st O.P. By Adv. George Cherian
Industrial Estate, Karippaparambil, Karippaparambil
Madhura road, New Delhi. Associates, HB-48, Panampilly
Nagar, Kochi-682 036)
2. Madona Care Centre,
Sony Authorized Service Centre,
Allens Cube, Door No. 31/346-D,
Paradise road, Janatha Junction,
Vytilla, Cochin-682 019,
rep. by its Service Manager.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. The complainant purchased a Sony DSCH 100/BC E32 digital still camera on 27-12-2012 from Sony Centre. Thereafter, on 28-08-2014 the camera was given for repairs with the 2nd opposite party Madona Care Centre, the authorized repairer of the Sony camera. It was returned to the complainant after repairs taking two and a half months time. Again on 12-03-2015 the camera became faulty and it was given to the 2nd opposite party for repairs. The camera was not returned to him till 2-7-15, the date of tiling this complaint. The camera had warranty till November 2015 and having the repeated very same complaint, the complainant requested for an order for replacement of the camera with compensation to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-.
3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and the 1st opposite party, who appeared and contested the matter by filing its version contending inter-alia as follows:
4. According to the 1st opposite party the complaint is vexatious and baseless. The product had 3 years warranty subject to terms and conditions. The complainant purchased the handicam on 27-12-2012. His 1st complaint was on 12-03-2015, which was after 2 and half years, the alleged problem was “no power and lens struck”. Pursuant to this the handicam was inspected and found that the main body need to be replaced. The complainant was requested to approve the repairs of the handicam by the opposite party No. 2., as it was within the warranty period. The complainant was adamant to get the handicam replaced with new one after a period of two and half years. Therefore, he did not approach the opposite party to give approval for repairing the camera. The complainant had not given the camera for repairs and therefore the opposite party cannot resolve the complaint. The complaint is filed in order to harass the opposite party and is therefore sought to be dismissed.
5. The 2nd opposite party did not appear to contest the matter and was set ex-parte.
6. The evidence in this case consists of Exbts. A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant and Exbts. B1 and B2
7. Following issues were settled for consideration.
Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
Reliefs and costs.
8. Issue No. i. The complainant produced Exbt. A1 invoice issued by M/s. Sony Centre, Infant Jesus Road, Bangalore on 27-10-2012. Exbt. A1 is seen purchased by one Mr. Anish, whereas the complainant is one Mr. Abhilash M.P. He produced a photo copy of the warranty, which is marked as Exbt. A2. Exbt. A3 is a proforma invoice issued in the name of the complainant on 28-8-14. The camera was repaired for Bangalore Sony Service Centre as seen from Exbt. A3. Exbt. A4 is also a job card issued to the complainant on 12-3-15 by the 2nd opposite party giving approval for repairs. It is seen received by the receptionist of the 2nd opposite party on 12-3-15 . The 2nd opposite party remained ex-parte. The complaint was there was no power and lens struck . The allegation of the 1st opposite party that the complainant did not give approval for repairs is false and the hide and seek game of the 2nd opposite party is evident from Exbt. A4 document which would go to show that the complainant had given approval for repairs on 12-03-2015. There is no evidence to show that the 2nd opposite party had returned the camera to the complainant after repairs . It may be true that since the camera was purchased by one Mr. Anish at Bangalore and there was no primity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. On that ground the 1st opposite party can not be saddled with any liability to replaced a new camera, on the ground that there was no manufacturing defects. At the same time, the 2nd opposite party cannot absolve their liability in returning the camera to the complainant after repairs on payment basis. The non-returning of the camera after repairing by the 2nd opposite party so far would constitute deficiency in service and is entitled for compensation from the 2nd opposite party alone. The issue is found in favour of the complainant in part.
Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i as above, we direct the opposite party No. 2 to return the camera received by them as per Exbt. A4 to the complainant duly repaired on payment basis within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant with costs of the proceedings estimated to be at Rs. 3,000/-. The payment shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which will be reckoned as the 3rd day from the date of dispatch of the order from this forum from this Forum.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8th day of March 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of Invoice dt. 27-12-2012
A2 : Copy of installation service
Coupon
A3 : Copy of proforma invoice
dt. 28-08-2014
A4 : Service job sheet dt. 12-03-2012
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : Copy of certified true copy of
resolution dt. 04-07-2011
B2 : True copy of warranty card
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
