BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 21st day of November 2017
Filed on : 26-09-2015
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.645/2015
Between
Suresh M, B-1 Star Castle, : Complainant
Link Avenue, (By Adv. Ushakumari P.,
Sastha Temple Road, C. No. 627, KHCAA Chamber
Kaloor, Ernakulam-682 017. Complex, Near High Court of Kerala,
Ernakulam)
And
1. The Managing Director, : Opposite parties
Sony India Pvt. Ltd., (O.P. 1&2 by Adv. Jolly John,
Regd. Office : A-31, Palathinkal, Chathamma,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Panangad P.O., Ernakulam)
Estate, Mathura Road,
New Delhi-110 044.
2. D. Nalini,
Customer Relations Executive,
Sony India Pvt. Ltd., 239,
Pantrapalya, Mysore Road,
Bangalore -560 039.
3. Madonna Electronics,
Sony Authorised Service
Centre, 40/7135, F4,
AVS Buildings, M.G. Road,
Kochi-682 035.
4. The Proprietor,
Aquariel IT Greens,
37/442, Near Akshya Hospital,
K.K. Road, Kadavanthra,
Kochi-682 020.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
The complainant, a Development Officer in LIC of India purchased a Sony Vaio Lap top on 05-10-2013 on payment of an amount of Rs. 39,500/- from the 4th opposite party. After few days of its purchase there was some problems with the keyboard and when the matter was reported he was informed that it was not a manufacturing defects. After a month, the colour of the screen developed change and when this matter was reported, the 3rd opposite party intimated that it was not a manufacturing defect. Thereafter the complainant found that the screw on the back side of the base unit in the left side top corner got unscrewed and the base side began to open, with the result, the screen was not standing straight. When this matter was reported to the 3rd opposite party they repaired it after bringing the screw from New Delhi. However, the same problem occurred again and when it was reported, the complainant was advised to undergo the same formalities again. All these things happened during the warranty period and therefore the complainant demanded to replace the lap top with a new one assuming that the system is having irreparable faults. On 22-04-2015 the complainant issued an e-mail complaint to the office of the 1st opposite party . As per the instruction of the 1st opposite party the complainant handed over the lap top to the 3rd opposite party. However, the grievance of the complainant was not fully addressed by the opposite parties. Therefore, another email communication was sent to the 1st opposite party on 09-05-2015 which did not meet with any results. Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice to the 1st and 4th opposite parties on 07-07-2015 which was replied by the 2nd opposite party refusing to replace the lap top. The opposite parties were purposefully evading their responsibility in replacing the system which had manufacturing defects. The laptop was purchased by the complainant for his day to day uses. Due to the deficiency in service the complainant had suffered a lot and therefore the opposite parties are directed to replace the laptop with a new one or to refund the price of the laptop with adequate compensation which he estimate at Rs. 5,00,000/-.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties who appeared and contested the mater .
3. As per the version of opposite parties 1 and 2 the problem occurring with the laptop concerning a missing screw were repaired under warranty terms free of cost . The remaining problem with the laptop is not covered under warranty for the reason that there was external damage on the bottom cover and at the palm rest of the laptop. Two screws were also found missing all these happened due to the external impact and therefore warranty is not applicable. The damage has been caused due to the negligence of the complainant.
4. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A8 on the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of DW1 and Exbts. B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite parties.
5. On the above pleadings the following issues raised for consideration.
Whether the complainant had proved that there was any manufacturing defects for the Soni Vaio laptop as alleged?
Reliefs and costs
6. Issue No. i. The laptop was purchased on 05-10-2013 as seen from Exbt. A1 true copy of invoice. On 20-04-2015 the complainant issued Exbt. A2 e-mail communication to the customer care of the opposite parties alleging that he found some problem with the keyboard and watermarks on the screen and there was loss of screws which jumped out despite service. The said email was replied as per Exbt. A3 on 20-04-2015 assuring to do the needful. On 21-04-2015 the complainant produced the laptop before the 3rd opposite party the authorized service centre for repairs. It is seen from Exbt. A4 that the bottom cover and the palm rest of the laptop were broken and two screws were found missing. It was also noted that there was scratches on LCD cover and on the bottom. On the next day, the complainant issued another e-mail communication to the opposite parties that the complainant demanded the replacement of the system as seen from Exbt. A5. On 09-05-2015 as per Exbt. A6 the complainant intimated the opposite parties placing on record his dissatisfaction in the matter of service, following Exbt. A7 Advocate notice issued on 07-05-2015. Exbt. A7 notice was replied by the opposite parties as per Exbt. A8. During examination of the complainant as PW1 the complainant admitted that he was given to understand that the warranty was for 3 years and the warranty card not produced by him. He also admitted that he did not registered any complaint with regard to the keyboard issue . He admitted that his first complaint was on 16-10-2014 which was regarding the loosening of the screws. According to him, the damage was caused only due to the loosening of the screws. He also admitted that physical damage of the laptop would entail in cancellation of the warranty. He did not produce any expert evidence with regard to any manufacturing defects for the product.
7. The opposite parties gave oral evidence through one of their officers and Exbts. B1 to B3 documents were marked. Exbt. B1 is the letter of authorization authorizing DW1 to give evidence on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Exbt. A2 is the repair service terms and conditions. And Exbt. A3 is the photographs showing that the laptop had external damage extensively.
8. On going through the evidence as above it is seen that the laptop was repaired and returned to the complainant by the opposite parties whenever it was produced promptly. The complainant did not prove his case that the laptop had manufacturing defects, by getting a report of an expert . Without any technical report it cannot be said that the complainant had proved any manufacturing defects for the products. The admission of the complainant that there was external damage corroborated by the job card produced by him would give an indication that the laptop had external damage caused due to the negligent usage. The complainant having not produced warranty papers can not claim and demand repairs under warranty. We find that the complainant had failed to establish his case of manufacturing defect and his right to get the laptop repaired under warranty. The issue is therefore found against the complainant.
9. Having found issue number i against the complainant we find that the compliant is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open forum on this the 21st day of November 2017
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 : True copy of Retail invoice dt. 05-10-2017
A2 : True copy of e-mail dt. 20-04-2015
A3 : True copy of g-mail dt. 20-04-2015
A4 : True copy of Service Job sheet
A5 : True copy of e-mail dt. 22-04-2015
A6 : True copy of e-mail dt.09-05-2015
A7 : True copy of lawyer notice dt. 07-07-2015
A8 : True copy of letter dt. 10-08-2015
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : True copy of Exbt. B1 Marked in the
proof affidavit.
B2 : True copy of Exbt. B2 marked in the
proof affidavit.
B3 : True copy of the photograph marked in
Exbt. B3 to the proof affidavit
Depositions
PW1 : Sujith. S
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
