DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO-554/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
01.09.2016 14.09.2016 29.01.2018
Complainant: Sarit Chakraborty, S/o Sunil Chakraborty, 517, Block-5A,
Khalisakota Pally, P.O.-Birati, P.S.-Dum Dum,
District-North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700 051.
Vs.
Opposite Parties:- 1) The Manager, Reliance Digital Shop/Reliance RESQ,
Satyam Tower, Haldiram Bus Stop, VIP Road, Kaikhali,
P.S.-Baguiati, District-North 24 Parganas,
Kolkata-700 052.
2) The Manager, Sony India Limited, PS Arcadia Central,
5th Floor, Plot no-4A, Abanindranath Thakur Sarani,
(Camac Street), Kolkata-700 017, West Bengal.
3) The General Manager, Sony India Limited,
PS Arcadia Central, 5th Floor, Plot no-4A,
Abanindra Nath Thakur Sarani (Camac Street),
Kolkata-700 017, West Bengal.
P R E S E N T:-Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay……President.
:-Smt. SilpiMajumder………………………………Member.
ORDER:11
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the Ops did not refund him the cost of the laptop till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that he purchased a Sony Viao laptop on 21.07.2014 by making payment of Rs.33,999/- towards the cost of the laptop. At the time of its purchase two years extended warranty was offered by the OP-1 being the authorized service centre of Sony India Limited for the period from 21.07.2015 to 21.07.2016. During the warranty period the OP-1 was supposed to look after of the said laptop except to the external damages as per the terms and conditions of the OP-1. At the time of purchase the Complainant paid in advance for extra warranty period of the said laptop to the OP-1 and he was assured that he will get required insurance coverage in respect of the said laptop. The problems were startedin the said laptop and ultimately the Complainant came to know that the laptop is suffering from its manufacturing defects. On 14.11.2015 the Complainant handed over the said laptop to the service engineers of the OP-1 for rectification of the problems. But the service was not given by the OP-1 on the ground of no-availability of the spare parts of the said laptop. The OP-1 declined to give any service assigning the absurd reason. On several occasion he contacted with the OPs for repairing the defects in the laptop and on all occasions he was informed by them that the laptop could not be reapired due to non-availability of the spare parts of the said laptop. According to the Complainant such action of the OPs is an example of deficiency in service on their parts. It is stated by the Complainant that it is common feature of such service provider to influence the purchaser for obtaining the extended warranty at the time of purchase any goods/article and if any problem is cropped up in the goods/article then they started to create force on the purchaser to purchase a new unit or to hand over him/her an under grade material. The Complainant contacted with the OPs on several occasions through e-mail, over telephone and personally requesting to take step for removal of the defects from the laptop, but to no effect. False assurance was given by the OP-1 on two occasions that the laptop will be handed over to him by 28.12.2015 in as it was condition after proper servicing, but the OP-1 had failed to keep its commitment. The Complainant tried his best to get back his laptop from the OP-1, but the OP-1 did not pay any heed to his request. After lapse of about two months from the date of submission of the laptop with the OP-1 the Complainant requested for arranging an alternative unit, no fruitful result yielded, no reply was given by the OP-1 against e-mail made by the Complainant. Till filing of this complaint the OPs have failed to satisfy him as to whether the laptop is at all repaired with the same spare parts and specifications or not. The laptop and the battery are still in the possession of the OP-1 since 14.11.2015 as on that date the laptop was given to the OP-1 for its necessary repairing. As the laptop has not yet been delivered to him in repaired condition, the Complainant being a research scholar in the Department of Computer Science & Technology is facing problems and harassment day to day and in the meantime he had already missed several research journal publications due to callousness of the OP-1. Having no redressal of his grievance the Complainant approached before the office of the CA & FBP, Government of West Bengal by filing a complaint, hearing was fixed therein on 09.03.2016, but the OPs did not bother to turn up. Finding no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.34,000/- being the cost of the laptop along with interest @18% p.a. on the said amount from 21.07.2014 till realization of the entire amount, to pay compensation of Rs.26,000/- due to harassment, mental agony and pain and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to him.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the Op-1 by filing written version contending that this OP used to render services of selling, repairing and maintenance of the electronics goods to the customers very honestly, sincerely and carefully and also maintain a good will and prestige in the said field. The Complainant has enjoyed the service of this OP since inception uninterruptedly. The Complainant purchased a Sony Vaio Laptop on 21.07.2014 and at the time of its purchase two years extended warranty was offered from the Op-1 being the authorized service center of Sony India Limited for the duration from 21.07.2015 to 21.07.2017. During the warranty period the OP-1 was supposed to look after care of the said article except to the external damages as the terms and conditions of the Company. With a view to provide service to the Complainant the engineer and the technician of the OP-1 inspected the product and tried their best to repair the same upon receipt of the complaint from the Complainant. It was successfully repaired and the customer was informed that the product was ready for delivery, but the Complainant did not turn up to collect the said product. The OP-1 has stated that it is not at all liable for any manufacturing defects as alleged by the Complainant. At the time of obtaining the extended warranty the Complainant being satisfied with the terms and the conditions accepted the same voluntarily and as the terms and conditions the OP-1 has acted in a proper manner. The Complainant did not file any scrap of document that the action of the OP-1 suffers from deficiency in service as well as in support of his claim. Inspite of providing better service a per the warranty clause the Complainant has filed this complaint against this OP with mal-intention with a view to grab some money from this OP through an illegal manner. For this reason as the Complainant has failed to substantiate his claim as well as deficient service of this OP-1 by adducing any cogent document, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
After admission of this complaint notices were sent to the OPs. The OP-1 appearing in the case is contesting by filing written version, but the other OPs inspite of receipt of notices did not turn up to contest the complaint either orally or by filing written version. On the date of final argument none was present on behalf of the OP-2 and 3. The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with several papers and documents in support of his contention. The OP-1 did not adduce any evidence, but filed some documents along with the written version and the Complainant filed written notes of argument.
We have carefully perused the petition of complaint, papers, and documents and heard argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and the OP-1. It is seen by us that the laptop of the Complainant was covered under the extended warranty obtained from the OP-1 under certain terms and conditions for the period from 21.07.2015 to 21.07.2017. The Complainant informed the OP-1 that some defects have occurred in the said laptop and accordingly the engineer and the technicians inspected the same and the Complainant was told by the said personnel to deposit the laptop with the OP-1 for necessary repairing. The annexure -3 as filed by the Complainant reveals that it was shown at the time of depositing the same that the ‘screw missing’, ‘scratches’ & ‘missing parts’ in the said laptop. Admittedly as the laptop was not handed over to the Complainant by the OP-1 within a stipulated time frame the Complainant made written correspondences with the OP-1 through e-mail and accordingly the OP-1 replied the same one after another. It was informed by the OP-1 to the Complainant in writing that due to non-availability of the parts for this particular model till 04.01.2016 the same could not be repaired in its totality. It was further intimated by the OP-1 that if the Complainant is agreed to return the same from the OP-1 without repairing condition, he may take back the same. On 14.01.2016 the OP-1 further informed the Complainant through an e-mail that the laptop has already been repaired with i5 processor which is better quality and the Complainant was requested to receive the said laptop from the OP-1. It was further mentioned by the OP-1 that as and when i3 processor will be available the OP-1 will replace the i5 processor and till then the Complainant is at liberty to go on with his work with the laptop as per his own will. During argument the Complainant has submitted that the OP-1 told that it will not provide i3 processorto him, but no documentary evidence is adduced by the Complainant in support of such contention and allegation. As the Complainant was requested to take back the laptop as it has already been repaired, but the Complainant did not show his interest to take back the same from the OP-1, rather by filing he is more interested to get refund of the cost of the said laptop, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1. Moreover the Complainant did not purchase the said laptop from the OP-1, rather being the third party service provider the OP-1 is under any obligation to refund the cost of the laptop to the Complainant. Furthermore as per the terms and conditions the OP-1 is also not liable to provide any outer parts of the laptop, rather it has limitation liability. It is evident from the record that without taking back the laptop from the OP-1 the Complainant approached before this Ld. Forum praying for certain reliefs along with refund of the cost of the laptop. The availability and non-availability of any spare parts of any particular model of any goods does not depend upon the will and action of the service provider. The OP-1 is also directed to provide i3 processor after its availability as per the terms and conditions of the warranty clause. Upon considering the materials as available in the record we are directing the Complainant to receive the said laptop from the custody of the OP-1. As the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the parts of the OPs, hence the complaint fails.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complaint is dismissed on contest against the OP-1 without any cost and dismissed exparte against the OP-2 and 3 without any cost.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me
