N.B.K. DASAMANTHA RAO Vs. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order passed by the District forum, Tirupathi in C.C.No.100 of 2006 whereby the District Forum has dismissed his complaint holding that the respondents have supplied the music system as per the specifications assigned by the appellant.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing the appeal are that the appellant has purchased a Sony Music System of Model No.MHC-W2-80D Sl.No.3354721 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent no.2 on 7.2.2006 and on the same day after the demonstration the music system was handed over to the appellant. At the time of demonstration and for 10 days thereafter all the five speakers functioned well. Later, the centre speaker of the music system ceased to function. The appellant brought the problem to the notice of the respondentno.2 who had deputed a technician to look into the matter. The technician could not rectify the defect in the music system inspite of attempting to repair the speaker for three times and expressed his opinion that the defect could not be rectified. The appellant requested for several times the second respondent to get the problem rectified, but to no avail. The appellant stated to have purchased the music system on finance from Bajaj Finance Limited and he had to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month towards the EMI for a period of eight months. The appellant sought for replacement of the music system with a new music system or in the alternative for the refund of the price of the music system. The appellant got issued notice dated 25.7.2006 to the respondent no.1 in this regard. The respondent no.1 gave reply on 11.8.2006 whereto the appellant had got issued a rejoinder to the effect that in the notice it was mentioned as Sony TV instead of music system.

(3.) The respondent no.1 resisted the claim by filing counter and contending that the appellant after satisfying himself in regard to the specifications of the set of the music system and the contents of the instruction manual, purchased the music system. The staff of the respondent no.1 installed the set at the residence of the appellant and conducted demonstration for proper understanding of the product to the appellant on three occasions, on 10.2.2006, 17.2.2006 and 23.8.2006. The appellant had no complaint at the time of installation of the set at his residence. The appellant has not lodged any complaint with the respondent no.1. The set has no manufacturing defect. The issue raised by the appellant was in regard to the functioning of the five speakers vis--vis the functioning of the deck. The 5.1 channel output refers to CD/DVD section of the set and the software used thereof. The set would produce 5.1 channel output only on DVD/CD/VCD provided the recording of software is of 5.1 channel. Tape deck section will not produce output in all the speakers if 5.1 channel recording in the cassette is not possible and the same was explained to the appellant. It was also clearly mentioned in the operational instruction manual that for the output of five speakers the consumer has to play the DVD wherein the recording of the software should be of 5.1 channel. The respondent no.1 has got issued reply dated 11.8.2006 to the notice that was got issued by the appellant clarifying that the set in question was a music system and not a television set. It was also informed to the appellant the centre speaker will only work in case of 5.1 channel output and it will not work on tape section. Thereafter a reply was also given to the letter sent by the appellant. The respondent no.2 remained exparte. The appellant has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. The appellant and the respondent no.1 filed their written arguments.