i purchased a sony ericsson F305 phone. IMEI NUMBER 35216203-036265-3 FROM SUN TELESERVICES . K 18 lajpat nagar 2.

The handset developed problems after a few months so i submitted the phone to repair at sony ericsson workshop in lajpat nagar. Phone number 011-46502595. The phone was submitted on 22/august/2009 but the company registers it as submittd on 3rd september 2009 . I havent yet got my phone back and have contacted them several times. They always give me the excuse that parts required to repair are pending . How can that be? that an authorised service centre does not have the parts of a phone manufactured by the same company.

Please help!!!!!!!!!!!! i have suffered a lot of inconveinince and they have not been helping despite several calls been made to them. Evry week they tell me that the phone will be done by next week but nothing has happened so far.

Kindly help me with the matter. I dont know what to do. The phone was brought for 8100.

Dear Sir

I have purchased one SonyEricsson XPeria X1 on 28-03-2009 for a whooping 32000/-.

The handset went dead on 17-01-2010 and subsequently I submitted it in there service center on 18-01-2010.

It had been a horrible nightmare starting then.

I have been following them like fools but no one is ready to help me.

I have requested and written to everyone in SonyEricsson. The people include

Mr Sanjeev Saxena (Head North India)
Mr Rajesh Sahni (Country Head Service)
Ms Shalini Sharma (Escalations Head)
Mr Anil Sethi (President Sonyericsson)

And finally

Mr Bert Nordberg (President SonyEricsson Global situated in London)

but no one is ready to help me.

I now want a FULL REPLACEMENT With any model of Same value as I have lost faith in this model.

Please help me.

Thanks

Pankaj

Dear sir,

Im resident of Madurai, I have purchased sony ericsson w395 on 17.01.2010(sunday) thru Mobile store - north veli street branch madurai. we have purchased the same around 7p.m, in the same night itself we found some greenish shade while capturing picture thru camera, and the same complaint was registered with the dealer, he ask me to bring the set, but since im working in marketing field im suppose to travel on that day, so i have left the same in my house itself as instructed my family member not to use the set. After i came back from my tour i have given that handset to mobile store on 25.01.2010 along with purchase bill and everything. within couple of days i got call from mobile store stating that my handset has been rectified so they ask me come and collect the set, but the next day when i went there they told me that, they have faced the same problem again in the set. so once again they have given the same to the service centre. But till date there is no response from that store as well as from customer service, they are hiding their face while im crossing them. Im totally fed up sir. Finally they are telling that sony ericsson can be replaced only if we use less than 4 minutes. But they have not reveal the same whild we are puchasing the set.

Please let me know sir what shall i do.

Product : sony ericsson Model : w395 date of purchase : 17.01.2010 Dealer : Mobile Store, North veli street, madurai.
IMEI No.357906039847691. Problem : Camera and Hanging problem.

Please let me know how can i proceed sir.

Many thanks
Sudakaran

Consumer Complaint No


801 of 2009

Date of Institution


4.06.09

Date of Decision


9.12.09

Pawan Nanda, s/o Sh.K.K.Nanda, r/o#3365, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1]Salora International Limited, D-13/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020 through Managing Director and others.

2]Salora International Limited, SCO 327, 2nd Floor, Sector 40 D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3]Standard Teletronics,SCO No.1049, Sector 22B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.



……Opposite Parties



CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER



Argued by: Sh. Hitender Kansal, Adv.proxy for Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Adv. for complainant.

OPs ex-parte.



PER DR. (MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

Succinctly put, the complainant on 26.06.08 purchased one Sony Ericson Mobile Set W580i bearing IME No.35243002-237572-2 for Rs.10,100/- from OP-3, manufactured by OP-1. At the time of purchase it was told to the complainant that the mobile set carries a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. The complainant stated that from the day one only, the mobile set started giving minor problem and in the month of February, 09, the set developed major defects. The complainant immediately went to OP-3 for the rectification of the said defect, however OP-3 directed the complainant to go to OP-2(authorized workshop) for defect rectification. The complainant visited OP-2 and was told that the defect would be rectified as the set was within warranty. On 16.02.09, the complainant brought the mobile set after defect rectification but shortly he again started facing the same problem as was faced earlier. The complainant again visited OP-2 and handed over the defective mobile set for rectification vide tag dt.13.03.09 and the complainant was assured to collect the set in the first week of April,09. The complainant received a call on 1.04.09 that the defect of the set is rectified and the same may be collected but third time also the complainant faced the same defect in the mobile set as was faced earlier by him. The complainant again visited the office of OP-2 but OP-2 did not issue the service tag to get the set repaired and now there is no positive response from the OPs to get the mobile set repaired/replaced. The set is still not working and lying with the complainant without its use. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed that the present complaint may kindly be allowed and OPs be directed to refund the amount of the set along with costs of litigation and compensation towards harassment caused to the complainant.

2. Notice was served to the OPs for written reply and evidence. None appeared on behalf of OPs, accordingly OPs proceeded against ex-parte.

3. The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4. We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record.

5. Annexure C-1 is the detailed invoice vide which the complainant on 26.06.08, purchased one Sony Ericson Mobile Set W580i bearing IME No.35243002-237572-2 for Rs.10,100/- from OP-3(manufactured by OP-1). According to the complainant the mobile handset did not work well after it was purchased. The case of the complainant brought on record annexure C-2 and C-3, the job sheet in the month of Feb, 09, the mobile set in question developed major defects and the complainant could not read the text or pictures on the display and even the key pad was not working.

6. The act and conduct of OP-3 in not honouring the warranty while sale of the above said mobile and consequently not repairing the defective mobile set during the warranty period without any cost, amounts to deficiency in service. In this manner it is evidently clear that OP-2 is carrying out



service in a negligent and deficient manner, thereby causing

harassment to the consumers, secondly the none-repairing of the defective mobile set during the warranty period surely amounts to deficiency in service because warranty is always given directly by the manufacturing company i.e OP-1. It is also liable to get the same repaired in case of any default within the specified period. In the instant case since, the mobile set was purchased by the complainant on 26.06.08and it became defective just after few months of its purchase and its defect was not rectified by OP-2 during the warranty, which we feel OP-2 is duty bound to repair that without any charges.

7. It appears that is why the OP intentionally did not appear after service and was proceeded against exparte, which shows that it has no defense to make against the complaint made by the complainant.

8. So, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case placed before us, we accept the complaint. Accordingly, we direct OPs to rectify the defect of the mobile set and to return the same to the complainant by making it fully functional and to the satisfaction of the complainant, after necessary repairs, without any charges within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In the event the said mobile set in question seems to be non-functional/non-operational or defective in any way or it is not possible to repair it. OPs shall replace it with the new mobile set of the same configuration within the aforesaid given period. We award costs of litigation of Rs.550/-, which shall be paid by the OPs within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @8% till its actual payment to the complainant. Accordingly the complaint stands allowed in the aforesaid manner.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Consumer Complaint No

810 of 2009

Date of Institution

05.06.2009

Date of Decision
20.01.2010

Gaurav Kumar s/o Sh.Rameshwar Lal r/o V.P.O. Chamkaur Sahib, Distt.-Ropar, Punjab

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1] Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., Building No.9A, 10th Floor, DLF Cybercity, Sector 25-A, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana

2] N.K.Electronics, Shop No.A-1, Mandir Market, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana

3] B.M. Services, Shop No.6, Basement Pearl Palace, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

4] Salora Intl. Ltd., S.C.O. 327, 2nd Floor, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh



……Opposite Parties



CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER



Argued by: Sh. Shabir Singh, Adv. for complainant.

OPs exparte.



PER DR. (MRS.) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

Succinctly put, the complainant on 08.03.08 purchased a Sony Ericsson mobile hand set model W580i EMI no.352430022506862 for Rs.10,000/- from retailer dealer (OP-2). On 09.03.08, he noticed some defect in the answer key of the said set. On 13.03.08, he approached the customer care centre and handed over the mobile hand set against complaint no. SES08CHD13640 dated 13.03.08. The said mobile set was replaced with a new one on 31.03.08. After few months, the replaced new hand set also developed the same defect as was with earlier one. The complainant again visited B.M. Services customer care centre (OP-3) and deposited the defective mobile hand set to them for repair. After repeated requests, on 05.01.09 the hand set was handed over to him after repair, in which the keypad and some other parts were replaced. That after some days the hand set again developed defect with its speaker and Bluetooth. On 2.02.09, he again deposited the defective mobile set with Salora International Ltd., Chandigarh (OP-4) for its repair, which was returned to him on 27.02.09 after repairs. The defect again developed in the repaired hand set and again he deposited the same to OP-4 on 10.03.09. After that the complainant rang up OP-4 many times to know about the status of repairs of the said hand set but every time he failed due to the delaying tactics of the OPs. The OPs never gave any convincing reply to him. After that, the complainant served a legal notice to OP No. 1, 2 and 3 but till date he had not received any reply regarding the repair of his mobile hand set. As the business of the complainant suffered a lot due to the defective mobile hand set, he purchased a new mobile phone for Rs.6,700/-. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused him a lot of harassment, mental agony and tension.

2] Notice was served to the OPs. None appeared on behalf of the OPs. Accordingly the OPs were proceeded ex-parte.

3] The complainant led evidence in support of his/her contentions.

4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.



5] Annexure C-1 is the Retail Invoice vide which the complainant purchased the mobile in question after making cash payment of Rs.10,000/- on 8.3.2008. According to the complainant, the mobile set did not work well and it developed certain defects from the very next day of its purchase, which was then taken to Service Centre of OP Company with its EMI No.352430022506862. The complainant again noticed that its answer key was not functioning properly giving problems while attending incoming calls. On 31.3.2008 the Customer Care Centre of said mobile handset company replaced the defective mobile handset with a new one. However, the new/replaced mobile hand set also started giving the same problems with regard to answer key resulting into non-response/late response to the incoming calls. Again the complainant had to visit the Service Centre of OPs for 6 times to get the new/replaced mobile handset repaired. Annexure C-2 to C-7 are the copies of the Job Sheets, but the OP Service Centre could not rectify the defects in the mobile set. Thereafter reminder (Ann.C-8) was also sent to the OPs but to no effect. The contention of the complainant is that OPs have been trying to rectify the defects in the mobile set for the last 5 months but could not succeed and the mobile set was lying with OP No.4 since 10th March, 2009 and till date it has neither been repaired nor returned to the complainant.



6] The notice of complaint was sent to the OPs but they did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte. The non-appearance of the OPs inspite of due service of notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against claim made by the complainant in the present complaint.



7] From the above facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has sufficiently proved his case by way of leading documentary evidence on record. In these set of circumstances, we hold that the OPs were deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant due to which the complainant had to suffer great mental tension and physical harassment. We also hold that the act of the OPs in not returning the defective mobile set which was deposited by the complainant with OP No.4 after carrying out necessary repairs, fully proves that the said mobile handset is non-repairable. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the OPs to refund the price amount of the mobile set to the complainant i.e. Rs.10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.550/-. We order accordingly. The OPs are directed to make the entire payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay penal interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum since the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 5.6.2009 till the payment is actually made to the complainant. The complaint stands allowed in above terms.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Complaint Case No :1147 of 2009

Date of Institution : 12.08.2009

Date of Decision : 06.01.2010

Ashwani Ananad, aged 52 years, son of Sh.B.D.Anand, resident of H.No.55, Sector 7, Panchkula.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1] M/s Sony India (P) Ltd., (Sony Ericsson), SCO No.162-163, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2] Essar Telecom Retail Ltd., SCO No.101, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.
3] The Salora International Ltd., SCO No.237, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.R.K.Bamal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Adv. for OP No.2.

OP No.1 and OP No.3 exparte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

Concisely put, the complainant purchased one mobile hand set of Sony Ericssion, Model P-IL from OP NO.2 on 4.6.2008 for Rs.16,729/- vide Ann.P-1. The said handset started giving problem from the very beginning of its purchase with regard to software hanging; message problem; show error-11 & menu/application slow etc. and therefore, it was deposited with OP No.3, the authorized service centre, for necessary repairs on 11.8.2008, who returned it on 11.11.2008 with an assurance that it would not give any problem. However, the said defects reoccurred in the mobile set even after repairs, as such it was again taken to OP No.3 on 20.2.2009, who returned it on 21.2.2009 with an assurance that it would not give any problem and in case it would give any such problem, the handset would be replaced with new one or its price amount would be refunded. It is averred that the said mobile set was still not functioning properly and therefore, it was again deposited with OP No.3 on 21.2.2009 in the evening and it was kept by OP No.3 upto 25.2.2009 for repair but the defect could not be removed being manufacturing defect. Thereafter the set was again deposited with OP No.3 on 4.3.2009 and then on 10.3.2009 for repairs and since then it was lying with OP No.3. It is averred that the official of OP No.3 has told that they are unable to repair/remove the defect in the mobile set being manufacturing defects. Then complainant visited the OPs to either replace his mobile handset with new one or refund its price amount, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint alleging the above acts of OPs as gross deficiency in service, which caused the complainant great mental & physical harassment and financial loss.

2] Notice was served to the OPs. The Representative of OP-1 appeared and sought time to file reply and evidence. After that none appeared on behalf of OP-1. Hence OP-1 suffered exparte. However, reply & evidence was filed by OP No.2. None appeared on behalf of OP-3, accordingly it was also proceeded exparte.

3] OP No.2 filed reply and admitted the sale of mobile set in question. It is denied that the OP No.2 ever retained the mobile handset in question for repairs or replacement. It is stated that they are merely retailers and had nothing to do with repair of the handset. It is also denied that the handset in question was defective or suffered from any manufacturing defect. It is further stated that answering OP has nothing to do with the repair or replacement of the mobile in question and the same could be dealt with only by OP NO.1 Manufacturer i.e. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. or OP No.3-Authorised Service Centre of OP Company. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that complaint qua OP No.2 be dismissed.

4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6] It is the contention of the complainant that he purchased a mobile handset of Sony Ericson, model P-IL, from OP-2 dated 4.06.08 for a sum of Rs.16,729/- which was manufactured by OP-1. Annexure C-1 shows that the above said mobile is under warranty for the period of one year i.e. from 4.06.08 to 3.06.09. Annexure P-2 to P-7 show that the above said mobile started giving problem during the period of warranty and the complainant took the mobile for necessary repairs on 4.06.08, 11.08.08, 20.02.09, 21.02.09, 4.03.09, 9.03.09 and 10.03.09. It is the contention of the complainant that he deposited the mobile for repair last on 10.03.09 and the same is lying with OP-3. The officials of the OP-3 stated that they are unable to repair the defect of the said mobile. As OPs did not listen to the grievances of the complainant, he served a legal notice dated 9.04.09 but OPs did not bother to reply.

7] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has sufficiently proved his case by way of documentary evidence placed on record. Therefore in these circumstances, we accept the complaint and hold the OPs deficient in rendering service to the complainant. It is the responsibility of the OP-2 and OP-3 to get the said mobile set repaired at their own expenses and deliver it to the complainant in proper functioning condition, which in the present case has not been done. There is thus, deficiency on the part of the OPs in not repairing the mobile hand set or in alternative not replacing it with the new set within the warranty period.

8] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving that there was deficiency in service rendered by the OPs. The complaint therefore succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP-3 is directed to rectify the defect in the said set and deliver it to the complainant in proper functioning condition to his satisfaction without charging anything. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.1100/- towards costs of litigation within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order failing which OPs would be liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest @9% p.a., since the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.08.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. It is also made clear to the OP-1 and OP-2 that in case the said mobile in question seems to be non repairable the same should be replaced with a new one of the same configuration and model and supply it to the complainant within the above stipulated period of 30 days.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

CC.No:128/2009

BETWEEN:

Vemuri Ramachandra Moorthy,

S/o Radha Krishna Muthy,

Hindu, aged about 38 years,

Poojari, R/o Ammanabrolu (v), ... Complainant.

Vs.

Sha China Plaza, represented by

Its Proprietor, Trunk Road, Ongole. …Opposite party.

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: SRI. B. ADI BABU,

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: EX-PARTE.

This complaint is coming on 11.01.2010 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this Forum delivered the following:

ORDER:

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party.


2. The case of the complainant is that on 01.04.2009 he purchased Sony Ericsson cell phone for the Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party and on 02.04.2009 when he was charging the cell phone with the charger supplied by the opposite party the cell phone was burst with huge sound. The opposite party sold duplicate cell phone assembled by him and not manufactured by Sony Ericsson Company and thereby cheated him. Inspite of repeated demands the opposite party fail to refund the amount. Hence, he filed the complaint.



3. The opposite parties did not choose to appear before the forum and contest the matter and remained ex-parte.



4. The attitude of the opposite party shows that the opposite party has nothing to say in his defence in the matter. Considering averments in the complaint and the affidavit filed by the complainant I am of the opinion that the complainant proved his case and the opposite party is liable to refund the amount together with interest to the complainant.



5. In the result, petition is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the cell phone together with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till realization to the complainant. It is further ordered that the opposite party shall pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant along with the cost of the cell phone.

C.C.No.217 OF 2009.
Date of filing: 30.10.2009.
Between :

P. Ratna Prasad, S/o.Ramchandra Rao, resident of JE 453, VTPS Colony, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada.

….. Complainant.

And

1. Sony Ericsson, represented by its Manager, Salora International Limited, # 3-13/4, KAHLA Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110 020.

2. BIG C, represented by its Showroom Manager, Multi Brand Mobile Show Room, Masjeed Street, Arundalpet, Vijayawada – 520 002.

3. Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Communications, represented by its Authorised Person, # 28-23-21, Sai Sadan, Ground Floor, Moulana Street, Arundelpet, Vijayawada – 520 002.

….. Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 07.01.2010, in the presence of Sri G.Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3 called absent and opposite party No.2 in person and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum doth order the following:


ORDER

This complaint is under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The concise averments of the complaint are as follows:

That the complainant purchased a mobile set (Sony Ericsson) mobile No.W580 with IME No.357143012107659 from the opposite party No.2 for valid consideration of Rs.13,500/- on 2.10.2007. Thereafter the mobile gave trouble (display) there upon he approached the 2nd opposite party who in turn suggested to approach 3rd opposite party accordingly the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party received hand set on 4.6.2008 and asked the complainant to come after two days accordingly the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party yet, the 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defect, on the other hand behaved indifferently and thereby the complainant suffered mental agony and as the 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defect, so the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 17.12.2008, though received opposite parties 1 and 2 but failed reply and comply, but third (3rd) opposite party replied with false and untenable allegations. Hence the complaint.



2. The 2nd opposite party alone filed version wherein he denied the allegations of the complaint in general and admitted the sale of Sony Ericsson mobile set but contended that the complainant never approached this opposite party and that he is only a seller and that he is nothing to do with the defects of the mobile and it is the 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service center to rectify the defects and if the mobile is having other defects it is for the manufacturer to answer and thereby there is no any deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and that this opposite party has no power to replace the mobile set with new one and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.



3. The opposite parties 1 and 3 did not contest the matter.



4. On behalf of the complainant the complainant himself filed an affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A7. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party Sri .N.Rajesh filed an affidavit but no documents are marked.



5. Heard on either side.



6. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:

i) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

ii) Whether the mobile set purchased by the complainant is having patent defect?

iii) To what relief the complainant is entitled?



7. Point Nos.1 and 2: As could be seen from the material on hand the complainant purchased Sony Ericsson mobile from the 2nd opposite party on 2.10.2007 vide Exhibit A1 and that the warranty certificate is Exhibit A2. The material further discloses that the mobile gave trouble within warranty period, so he approached the 2nd opposite party who in turn advised to approach the 3rd opposite party, who in turn received the mobile and gave job card vide Exhibit A3 and Exhibit A4 clearly discloses that the mobile is having warranty even for battery. Thereafter the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party who returned the mobile stating that he rectified the defects but in fact the 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defects. Ofcourse the learned counsel for the complainant and the complainant contended that the 3rd opposite party behaved indifferently etc., etc., may be, may not be but yet that is not the criteria in this complaint, but it has to be seen whether the mobile is having patent defect or latent defect, if so the 3rd opposite party rectified the same or not, as it is by going through the entire record on hand it is clear that the mobile is having patent defect, otherwise the 3rd opposite party ought to have repaired or rectified the defect within no time and in fact he failed to do so. Further the complainant got issued legal notice under Exhibit A5 and the opposite party received under Exhibit A6 but the 1st and 2nd opposite parties neither complied nor replied but the 3rd opposite party got replied stating that due to mishandling of the hand set mother board in the said system was damaged for which replacement of mother board is essential, further stated to the complainant to come and receive the mobile but the complainant failed to come to the 3rd opposite party and failed to receive, even if it is true, what prevented the 3rd opposite party not to send the mobile to the complainant or what prevented the 3rd opposite party not to deposit before this Forum, at least after filing of this complaint, that means the reply is not correct, so, as it is the acts of the 3rd opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and keeping the mobile with him since long as contended by the complainant also amounts to negligence on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Whatever it may be, since the defect of the mobile was not rectified by the opposite parties, and that the defect was occurred/noticed within the warranty period but failed to rectify though much time elapsed, so it amounts to deficiency in service, so the plea of the complainant has to be accepted and accepted and thereby these points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.



8. Point No.3: In the result the complaint is allowed and the 2nd opposite party is hereby directed to take back the defective mobile set sold under Exhibit A1 from the complainant and to provide the defective free new mobile set of same model to the complainant. Thereafter the 2nd opposite party is at liberty to get it reimbursed from the 1st opposite party/the manufacturer on such request by the 2nd opposite party the 1st opposite party/manufacturer shall reimburse the loss to the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties 1 and 3 (jointly and severally) are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only to the complainant towards costs. Rest of the claims if any claimed by the complainant are rejected. Time for compliance one month.

Dear Sir

I am an unfortunate and a poor user of Sony Ericsson Mobile phonewho is
being harassed by your service center in New Delhi, India.

I will request you to please help me.

"I have purchased one SOny Ericsson P1i on 5th May 2009 fromCariano
Telecom for a huge 19500/-(rs nineteen thousand five hundred only).

all my friends were insisting that I should go for a NOKIA if I
amspending that much but still I trusted Sony and invested in that. But
after thepainful experience, I think they were right. Even they have
the right to teaseme and they do.

My handset started giving few pronlems like loosing network veryoften
and display also used to go blank.

I deposited the handset in your service center RT Outsourcing
Ltd.situated at District Center, Janak Puri, New delhi on 13/March/2010
videworkorder no SE310RJK11547 and after 20 days I recieved it back
on03/April/2010

It was still with same problems with an added problem that mtmemory
card was also not working now.

I deposited the handset back again on 24/April/2010 vide workorderno
SE310RJK12423

When on last friday I went to service center, I was shoked by
therudeness of service center in telling me that the handset will not
be coveredunder warranty since LCD was broken.

I was in a fix since after 1 month of depositing the handset yourexpert
engineers came to know that LCD was broken of a WORKING HANDSET
whichwas handed over to your service center in prefectly working
condition.

I am left with no option and choice except to speak to
higherauthorities like you and update you regarding the FRADULENT
PRACTICES beingfollowed by your service centers.

I will request you to immediately look into the matter and I willlike
you to help me on 2 things

1. I want an apology fron Service Center for the fraud andharrasment
done to me
2. I will now not take this handset model (P1i) since your
servicecenter has told me that the model is OBSELETE and that no parts
are availablefor repairing.

Waiting for reply
Kamil

9582827418

i am vikram singh chauhan , just passed my graduation.
i had bought C510 model on 30- august-2009.
i hadsome display problems in my cell and so i went to the authorised sony ericsson service center.
i was very pleased in the beginning as the responsible people there told me that within 2-4 days they will fix my problem. they had called me in the evening to know whether i am willing to repair my cell as they were charging aroung 2600 /-
i asked them to wait and i will call them after a day as my final semester exams were going on.
but when i went there to enquire about my cell . they said it has been dispatched to our workshop.
I WAS STILL OKAY WITH THEIR IRRESPONSIBLE ATTITUDE.
problem started when i did not got any call from them even after waiting for 5 odd days.
I GAVE MY CELL ON 25-05-2010 to the service center, as my semester exams got over by 26th may and i had to wait just for their delayed response.
and today its been 8th of june.
its been 5 times i have been running around ,waiting for hours at their center,burning my petrol, my money, an cost of living ... since here in bangalore i have no guardians.
EVERYTIME I GO THERE- they say-(we will give you a call by evening) , its been so bad on their part
and to worsen my situation one lady at the center lost her cool on me and said why you keep coming here.
i am feeling helpless and cheated by sony ericsson.
i have always bought sony ericsson sets .. but now after dealing with so much trouble and humiliation i am never willing to buy it in future .
i strongly ask and want an strict action against this...
i want my cell back and repaired and the charged some of money should not be charged.
or if they have lost my cell i want a new handset
it is harassment ,literaly

I have purchased a sony ericsson handset product description as 000097774 Sony Ericson Naite with IMEI no 356813035697347 on 07/01/2010 frpm Essar telecom Retail Ltd, 64A, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata 700 001 vide Invoice No. WB/01074/00001/9078 dt. 07/01/2010. But after 6 months the handset is giving problem ; some times it automaticaly gets off or sometime it is showing that insert Sim. I gave the handset to Aryan IT Services at Poddar Court, gate no3, 2nd Floor, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata 700 001 for checking the problem on 30/06/2010 with work order no. SE310ATS11809. On 03/07/2010, they say that liquid have been found in the handset and to repair it, charges will apply. But. this is to inform you that I my handset have never fallen into water and any liquid has never fallen on the handset. This is purely the handset problem and it should be repaired without any charge as it is in the warranty period and it is the liability of the company. I request you to look into the matter and ask the Service Centre to repair it without charge.

My name is Sridaran Ravikumar , TSO ,HCL TECHNOLOGIES,CHENNAI,INDIA.

I was a proud owner of a SE K550i mobile. I had a problem with it , the function of the hash key got changed to that of the menu key and i could'nt use any features in the mobile , b'coz the option to cancel or end gets selected automatically.

I took the mobile to a authorised service centre in vellore( my home town) and the man incharge told after a single glance at the mobile that the problem is with the IC and the mobile has to be sent to chennai.

I work in chennai and so i got the address of the service centre which is in Greams road , thousand lights , Chennai Ph No: +914466213082

I went there by first week of June'2010.

I gave my mobile to them and explained the problem and also told about the IC.
They took my mobile to a "Hardware Check" and after twenty minutes came out and said that the fault is definetly with the keypad.

They informed me of the charges and told that it would take atleast two days to do the service and also told that I would be updated regarding the progress , which at the first place they didn't!! ( WORK ORDER NUMBER : 19983)

I had given them my friend's mobile number.

I waited for a weak and phoned them and i came to know that its ready.

I went to them happily to receive my mobile and i paid the money and they asked me to check it.

The worst thing that i saw is the keypad has been changed and the problem become worse. I could see that they haven't checked the mobile after doing the service.

When i asked about it there came a lethorgic answer that it would have worked when the engineer changed the keypad.


They again took the mobile to examine it and after an other twenty minutes they informed me that the mobile has to be sent to higher level service and it might take ten days and they are not sure whether the issue will be resolved or not!!
I saw a person waiting at the centre, he was worrying about his brand new mobile which he gave to this centre before six months!!!
and still they have it.


Despite that i gave my mobile to be sent to the higher level service and again they informed me that i would be kept informed, which again did'nt happen.

My parents were worried at that time b'coz they were not able to contact me. I had no other go and i bought a new samsumg mobile for 2500 Rs.


I waited , waited and after few days i phoned them daily to know about the mobile and nearly after two and a half weeks time i got an answer that it is ready.


I went there , they informed me that the problem was with the keypad and they have changed it.
I paid Rs.664 and got my mobile back and everything was fine.

For the worse it was only for two days , the problem that i had ,surfaced again!

I've given Rs.664 for a service which worked only for two days!!

I had a tight schedule at work and could'nt reach them immediately, but when i phoned they said its ok if i come a week later.

I sent my friend with all the details , my old keypad, and the mobile with the new key pad.
It was on 3rd of July


My friend went there and was not treated well by the staff at there. They made him wait for nearly five hours , and they checked my mobile five to six times facing a negative response from my friend each time.


Then they shouted at him by saying " Why do you complain again and again by saying keypad not working? Don't you know how to use a mobile?"


He works for Cognizant and a techie by himself faced this nasty behaviour , blasted at them and after which
they came to a conclusion.

They said that the mobile will be kept under examination by the engineers and will inform us about the results.

They informed me finally that the problem can't be resolved by the engineers as the problem is with the board and they promised me my money back.

Its not a happy news b'coz they found the problem only after a month and i'm skeptical about the skills of the engineers who work their and also at the " Higher Level Service".

They gave me a lot of mental stress and i was worried about my mobile loosing concentration on my work

Now they got the new keypad back and said that they have ro send an email to someone incharge to get the money back and it would take a week to get a response because the money was paid last month.

I had already spent a month and a half without my mobile and it was on 12th of july 2010

I wonder why would that be , a week to get a response to give me my money back !!

But still i accepted b'coz i was not in a mood to fight and i also convinced myself with the reason they told me.

And again i was informed that i would be kept infromed, which fro the third time did'nt happen!!!

I'm still waiting for a response from them!!

I had mental stress above all i did'nt have my mobile in my hands for more than a month!

I loved being a sony ericsson mobile user and so do my friends , and i still would buy an other SE mobile in future.

But with this level of customer service experience i highly doubt that it would happen!!!

I hope that i would get my money back soon and i would be glad to become a member of the SE again only if that happens!!

Originally Posted by sridaran88

My name is Sridaran Ravikumar , TSO ,HCL TECHNOLOGIES,CHENNAI,INDIA.

I was a proud owner of a SE K550i mobile. I had a problem with it , the function of the hash key got changed to that of the menu key and i could'nt use any features in the mobile , b'coz the option to cancel or end gets selected automatically.

I took the mobile to a authorised service centre in vellore( my home town) and the man incharge told after a single glance at the mobile that the problem is with the IC and the mobile has to be sent to chennai.

I work in chennai and so i got the address of the service centre which is in Greams road , thousand lights , Chennai Ph No: +914466213082

I went there by first week of June'2010.

I gave my mobile to them and explained the problem and also told about the IC.
They took my mobile to a "Hardware Check" and after twenty minutes came out and said that the fault is definetly with the keypad.

They informed me of the charges and told that it would take atleast two days to do the service and also told that I would be updated regarding the progress , which at the first place they didn't!! ( WORK ORDER NUMBER : 19983)

I had given them my friend's mobile number.

I waited for a weak and phoned them and i came to know that its ready.

I went to them happily to receive my mobile and i paid the money and they asked me to check it.

The worst thing that i saw is the keypad has been changed and the problem become worse. I could see that they haven't checked the mobile after doing the service.

When i asked about it there came a lethorgic answer that it would have worked when the engineer changed the keypad.


They again took the mobile to examine it and after an other twenty minutes they informed me that the mobile has to be sent to higher level service and it might take ten days and they are not sure whether the issue will be resolved or not!!
I saw a person waiting at the centre, he was worrying about his brand new mobile which he gave to this centre before six months!!!
and still they have it.


Despite that i gave my mobile to be sent to the higher level service and again they informed me that i would be kept informed, which again did'nt happen.

My parents were worried at that time b'coz they were not able to contact me. I had no other go and i bought a new samsumg mobile for 2500 Rs.


I waited , waited and after few days i phoned them daily to know about the mobile and nearly after two and a half weeks time i got an answer that it is ready.


I went there , they informed me that the problem was with the keypad and they have changed it.
I paid Rs.664 and got my mobile back and everything was fine.

For the worse it was only for two days , the problem that i had ,surfaced again!

I've given Rs.664 for a service which worked only for two days!!

I had a tight schedule at work and could'nt reach them immediately, but when i phoned they said its ok if i come a week later.

I sent my friend with all the details , my old keypad, and the mobile with the new key pad.
It was on 3rd of July


My friend went there and was not treated well by the staff at there. They made him wait for nearly five hours , and they checked my mobile five to six times facing a negative response from my friend each time.


Then they shouted at him by saying " Why do you complain again and again by saying keypad not working? Don't you know how to use a mobile?"


He works for Cognizant and a techie by himself faced this nasty behaviour , blasted at them and after which
they came to a conclusion.

They said that the mobile will be kept under examination by the engineers and will inform us about the results.

They informed me finally that the problem can't be resolved by the engineers as the problem is with the board and they promised me my money back.

Its not a happy news b'coz they found the problem only after a month and i'm skeptical about the skills of the engineers who work their and also at the " Higher Level Service".

They gave me a lot of mental stress and i was worried about my mobile loosing concentration on my work

Now they got the new keypad back and said that they have ro send an email to someone incharge to get the money back and it would take a week to get a response because the money was paid last month.

I had already spent a month and a half without my mobile and it was on 12th of july 2010

I wonder why would that be , a week to get a response to give me my money back !!

But still i accepted b'coz i was not in a mood to fight and i also convinced myself with the reason they told me.

And again i was informed that i would be kept infromed, which fro the third time did'nt happen!!!

I'm still waiting for a response from them!!

I had mental stress above all i did'nt have my mobile in my hands for more than a month!

I loved being a sony ericsson mobile user and so do my friends , and i still would buy an other SE mobile in future.

But with this level of customer service experience i highly doubt that it would happen!!!

I hope that i would get my money back soon and i would be glad to become a member of the SE again only if that happens!!

Hello Consumer Court Members,
If you are facing the same problem with your SE K550i again and again even after many repair by the Parent company, it means the problem is irreparable and the product is faulty and need to be replaced. For that you need to register your complaint with their Customer care, and in case you are not satisfied with Customer Care response then send a written notice to the CMD of SONY ERICSSON mention all the details in it, attach all the photocopy of relevant documents like bill, and the job sheet and ask them for the refund/replacement + damages within the mentioned time in the notice.
Wait for their response and revert us back.
For notice reference Visit: Notice before filing consumer complaint
Note: Keep all the copy of Complaint, Notice and the registered post slip, this may help you if you need to knock the consumer forum.

Dear Sir/Madam,
This is regarding the complaint for the mobile(sony-c510) purchased from the Purchaser(please find below) is not functioning properly from the very next week of the purchase date (19/03/2010)
I have made complaints(thrice) about this to the respective shop, but their action is not effective in alleviating the problem.

The problems are as below.
1) switch off& disconnecting the call are not happening correctly.
2) Joystick not functioning properly
3) Night mode flash settings not working prperly


Kindly take necessary action to provide me a new mobile (same model) from the purchaser/from the manufacturer(Sony) or the actual cost
of the mobile and also additional compensation as a part of our unnecessary efforts spent from our side.



Purchaser Address:
Poorvika Moble World
No.22, Muthurange Mudali Street,(Near Municipal Office),
West Tambaram, Chennai 600 045

Regards
A.Mugunthan(9444542631)