Order No.  18  dt.  10/01/2017

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased Mini DV Sony Handicam  of model DCR-HC42E on 11.01.2006 from Chowringhee Studio , 12,Chowringee Road, Kolkata-700013 by paying Rs.30,000/- in cash. The Handycam was covered under 3 years of warranty.  The seller informed the complainant  that all warranty services would be provided by Sony India Pvt. Ltd and their authorized Service Centre  Neosa Pvt Ltd at Asansol (herein after  referred to as o.p.no.2). the said Handycam is mainly controlled by touch panel LCD function. Just after eight months from the date of purchase the LCD Panel started to malfunction. Very often it became off and no picture appeared.  At the end of September, 2006 LCD Panel stopped to function at all and the Handicam was completely unusable on 02.10.2006. On 27.10.2006 complainant sent email to o.p.no.1 being instructed by o.p.no.2.  Complainant visited personally at the office of o.p.no.2 on 06.11.2006 and handed over the defective camera for  repairing. On 22.11.2006 complainant visited  the office of the o.p.no.2 to collect the repaired camera. The technical persons of the Service Center informed the complainant that the connector cable of LCD Panel was cracked and it was replaced during repair.  After One year i.e. in November,2007 again some problem occurred. The complainant again handed over his defective Handycam to o.p.no.2 on 03.12.2007 and the complainant received the camera after repairing on 20.12.2007.

            At the time of handing over the repaired camera on 20.12.2007 the technician of the Service Centre informed the complainant that some defect may appear in future and which will cost near about Rs.2,000/-. The defect appeared twice in the duration of one year 10 months from the date of purchase and the complainant informed about this to o.p.no.1.

            Again the camera was out of order on 31.10.2008. The problem of dead LCD and  view finder was noticed. Then complainant informed his grievance to o.p.no.1 on 24.11.2008 claiming for replacement of the defective camera . The o.p. company did not response to his letter. After a long silence for about one year 5 months two persons of  o.p.no.2 attended complainant’s complaint on 22.05.2010.  They  tried to repair the defective camera at complainant’s home but failed and ultimately they decided to take it to Service Centre. Complainant appealed them repeatedly to solve the recurring problem of the Handycam. O.ps returned the camera on 29.06.2010 but complainant found a very peculiar defect. The zoom was not functioning properly. Again he collected the defective camera on 02.07.2010 and returned it on 06.08.2010.  But same problem again arose in the camera in question on 27.010.2011. Complainant informed the matter through email on 08.11.2011 to o.p.no.1. Hence  the application praying for replacement of the defective Handycam or to pay Rs.30,000/-  by o.ps along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            O.p. no.1 appeared before this Forum and filed their written version. Though  the notice was served upon o.p. no. 2 they did not appear and so the matter was fixed ex parte as against o.p.no.2.

            In their w/v o.ps denied all material allegation interalia stated that o.p.no.1 provides a limited warranty on its product  and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.

            In the present case the complainant approached the o.p.no.2 on 02.05.2006 with the complainant picture blurred and it was informed to the complainant that the alleged defect was not actually defect and was occurring due to particular setting of the Handycam. Accordingly the features of the Handycam were explained to the complainant and the complainant  admittedly used the Handycam for a long time without any problem whatsoever. Thereafter complainant approached o.p.no.2 on 07.11.2006 with complaints regarding no picture on the LCD of Handycam. The Handycam was inspected and necessary spare part was changed and Handycam was delivered to the complainant. Complainant used the Handycam for a period of more than one year before approaching o.p.no.2 for the problem of no picture. Thereafter in May,2010 and July,2010 complainant approached  o.p.no.2 regarding picture and camera went into wide mode. Even though the warranty period was expired, op.no.2, as a goodwill gesture  provided necessary support to the complainant free of cost. Last time complainant approached o.p.no.2 in July, 2010 thereafter no complaint has been received from the complainant with respect to his handycam. When the o.p. received the notice from this Forum they became shocked. However as a goodwill gesture the representatives of o.p.no.1 contacted with complainant in order to ascertain the nature of his complaint. O.p.no.1, as a goodwill gesture towards the complainant again offered him to buy a new Handycam at a high discounted price in exchange of the old one. O.p.no.1 offered a newe  Handycam worth Rs.17,990/- for a price of Rs.10,679/-. However to the utter shock and surprise of the representatives of Sony, the complainant became to raise false and baseless allegation against o.ps and refused aforesaid offer.

            In their w/v o.p.no.1 also submitted  that the case is barred by limitation since the last cause of action arose in the year 2010. Hence o.ps prayed for dismissal  of the case.

Decision with reasons

We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and materials on record. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Handycam bearing Model No. DCR-HC42E on 11.01.2006. The warranty cards provided for warranty of the said LCD. The said warranty card also provides with the liability of the manufacturer which is  strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. After the use of the said  Handycam for more than 10 months on 07.11.2006 complainant first made a complaint with respect to the said Handycam  for ‘no picture on LCD’. Accordingly o.p.no.2 inspected the same and repaired it duly. Thereafter whenever any problem occurred in the said handycam complainant approached o.p.no.2 and technician of o.p.no.2 gave due service.  Complainant annexed the job sheets dated 06.11.2006, 03.12.2007 and 02.10.2010 issued by o.ps. Therefore after continuous use of  the said handycam for more than 2 and ½ years complainant approached o.p.no.2 with problem regarding picture and camera going into wide mode. Though the warranty period was expired, as a goodwill gesture, the o.p. duly provided the necessary support free of cost and duly repair the same. Thereafter no complaint has been made by the complainant. Therefore we are in view that o.ps gave proper service to the complainant whenever it complainant approached them. Even after expiry of the warranty period they provided the necessary support to the complainant and charged nothing for repairing. Therefore we find no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.

            Apart from this  the handycam in question was purchased by the complainant on 11.01.2006. The last communication was made by the complainant on 08.11.2011 and the instant complaint petition was filed on 21.11.2013 i.e. beyond limitation period of this Forum. No petition for condonation of delay has been filed to that effect. So the  case is hopelessly barred by limitation.

            However as a  goodwill gesture o.ps again offered him to purchase the new camera with a high discounted price but the complainant declined to that offer.

            In view of above complainant has failed to prove his case since there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.

            Hence, ordered

            That the case no.676/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.no.1 and dismissed ex parte o.p. no.2

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.