DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 5th day of April 2023
Filed on: 22.09.2016
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C.No.539/2016
COMPLAINANT
Jitendra Kumar Tiwari. Age- 27 Yrs, S/O. Shri Harish Chandra Tiwari 747 SON(CG),CGAE Kochi,INS Garuda, Naval Base,Ernakulam-682004.
(By Adv.Vishnu Das, Providence Road, Madhava Pharmacy Junction, Ernakulam, Kerala, Pin-682 018)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- The Manager, Madonna Electronics Sony India Registered Office 2nd Floor, Muscat Tower S.A. Road, 26/192 NH-47.
Edappally Toll, Cochin-682024.
2. The Regional Manager, Cochin Region, Kadavanthara Cochin-682020
3. Mr. Kenichiro Hibi, Sony India Customer ,Managing Director Service Head Industrial State, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
(Op 1, 2 and 3 rep. by Adv.K.SArundas, 35, DD Oceano Mall, Near Taj Gateway, Marine Drive, Ernakulam-682 011)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a Sony Experia Z2 Smartphone from the third opposite party on 03 Sep 2014. He desired a durable phone that can meet all his requirements. But the phone has hanging and heating problem from the beginning and when contacted the customer care the complainant was advised to reboot the phone. On 22 May 2016 his phone totally hanged and slowed down. Therefore, to resolve this issue the complainant contacted customer care and they suggested him to handover the mobile at authorised service centre. The complainant approached the first opposite party which is the authorised service centre for Sony Smartphone and deposited the phone there on 26 May 2016 against Job No. W116052600756 which clearly shows hanging problem only. The complainant got a call on 27 May 2016; he went there around 1630 Hrs to collect the phone after repair. the complainant was forced to pay Rs. 250/- (against the printed amount i.e. Rs. 171.75 on bill number MEC/16-05/0000259 DATED 31 May 16) as repair charges. The complainant switched on the phone but it was having only a 13 per cent battery level and still, it was hanging. Since then, the service centre’s working hours were over and customer care people suggested him to charge the phone first and then use it. The complainant was provided with a repair warranty of 03 months for the same. On reaching home the complainant charged the phone fully and tried to switch it on but the phone couldn't be switched on again. The complainant contacted customer care and told them about his problem and they suggested the complainant to again visit the centre. The complainant submitted his phone once again against Job No W116060203575 on 02-06-2016 and was assured that they will do the software job again and the phone can be collected the next day evening. When the complainant has not received call from the service centre for few days, the complainant called them and was told that they are sending his phone to some other place for repair and the initial estimate was Rs.500. The complainant received a call after a week and the complainant was told to deposit Rs.14200 for repairs and was provided with estimate invoice of replacing the battery, adhesive battery top, sheet cu17 sheet FPC Battery, cap USB purple, panel back purple which all were in good and servicing conditions when the complainant deposited his phone to the centre. The set was in working condition when it was deposited Mishandling of the phone by service centre led the phone into a faulty condition after repairs. When the complainant requested them to provide me with ASM (area service Manager) mobile no to bring it to his notice, service centre refused to provide it. the complainant had undergone physical (due to travelling 60 kms frequently) and mental harassment due to non-availability and irresponsible reply by customer care centre staff. The complainant complained many times to customer care and also sent email Questions in support Sonymobile.come.edpmadonna@gmail.com against service ID to 16052802039 which went to vain. The complainant had approached the commission seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay 42,214/- towards purchase and software repairing and mobile opening charges, Rs. 50,000/ towards compensation for the mental agony, and harassment caused by the complainant and the cost of the proceedings.
2). Notice
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notices and jointly filed their versions.
3). THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 1, 2 & 3
The Complainant's Handset gets damaged after using it for or around 1 year 5 month and thereafter the Complainant want Free of Cost service.
a) That in the present case the complainant allegedly purchased a Sony Xperia Z2 smartphone on 03.09.2014 having IMEI 352494061084330 worth Rs. 41,849.
b) That the complainant used the phone for 1 year and 5 months without facing any issues in it as admitted and approached the Opposite Parties for the first time on 26.05.2016 for service with the issue of "phone hanging".
c) That the Service Engineer of the Opposite Parties received the set from the complainant and kept it for repairing purposes and a bill was raised against it. As per the complaint received, the Opposite Parties repaired the said handset of the complainant.
d) That the allegation made by the complainant that the Opposite Parties forced him to pay an amount more than what is mentioned in the bill. That the allegations are made only in order to hamper the reputation of the Opposite Parties.
e) The handset was handed over to the complainant by the Opposite Parties on 27.052016 as admitted by the complainant and it is an admitted fact by the complainant that the complainant switched on the phone set and found it to be not charged.
f) That when the complainant received the said handset it was in working condition and therefore the allegation put by the complainant that the phone set was mishandled by the service centre is false, frivolous and completely baseless. Since there have been new and other problems arising in the said handset; an estimate for the repair was given to the complainant by the Opposite Parties as the product was out of warranty.
g) That when the complainant again approached the Opposite Parties, prima facie it was thought to be again a software issue and therefore the above-mentioned estimate was not given at that time to the complainant. It was only after detailed inspection that other issues were also found in the phone set which was later on informed to the complainant through a detailed estimate. Hence, the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is a settled proposition of law that no one should be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong.
4). Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 7 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-7.
Exhibit A-1: True copy of the Tax invoice/cash memorandum.
Exhibit A-2: True copy of the Retail invoice/Cash/Memorandum
Exhibit A-3. True copy of the Service job Sheet
Exhibit A-4: True copy of the Cash receipt.
Exhibit A-5: True copy of the Estimate Receipt.
Exhibit A-6: True copy of the Compliant letter to Sony India Customer service Head.
Exhibit A-7: True copy of the Postal detail track receipt.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced true copy of the Tax invoice/cash memorandum issued by the third opposite party (Exhibit A-1). This document revealed that the complainant had paid the requisite consideration for the product to the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The complainant submitted that he sent a letter to Sony India customer service head new Delhi on 21 Jun 16 via speed post which was received on 24th Jun 16 as a proof slip, but the complainant got no response from head office yet. This clearly shows the irresponsible behaviour of the staff towards their reputed parent company who failed either to service the phone properly or replaced the phone instead of keeping on playing with the customer. The complainant’s initial problem was hanging of the phone and there was no complaint regarding the battery of the phone which was asked to the replaced in Exhibit A-5. The complaints regarding the phone leading to the above complaint have started after the software update as seen in Exhibit A-2. Also, the Opposite Parties has failed to show any physical or water damage which may have resulted in the malfunction of the subject matter phone. In the above circumstances we are of the considered view that the phone has started to malfunction after the software update and all subsequent malfunctions and defects to the phone has commenced after that, hence the complainant has proved the case on merit and therefore the following orders are issued.
O R D E R
1). The opposite parties shall refund Rs. 41,849/- towards the cost of the mobile phone as per Exhibit A-1 invoice to the complainant.
2) The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for the mental pain and hardships caused to the complainant.
- An amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be given by the opposite party to the complainant being the cost of proceedings.
The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 5th day of April 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 7 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-7.
Exhibit A-1: True copy of the Tax invoice/cash memorandum.
Exhibit A-2: True copy of the Retail invoice /Cash /Memorandum
Exhibit A-3. True copy of the Service job Sheet
Exhibit A-4: True copy of the Cash receipt.
Exhibit A-5: True copy of the Estimate Receipt.
Exhibit A-6: True copy of the Compliant letter to Sony India Customer service Head.
Exhibit A-7: True copy of the Postal detail track receipt.
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
C.C.No.539/2016
Order dated 05/04/2023
