Haryana

Panchkula

CC/123/2016

DINESH KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SONY INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AMARDEEP SHARMA.

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                                          

Consumer Complaint No	:	123 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	10.11.2016

                                                                                            

Dinesh Kumar son of Nand Lal Pahwa, resident of House No. 1286, Sector- 15, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mathura Road, Delhi 110044.
2. M/s Ambika Enterprises, SCO 42, Sector-11, Panchkula.
3. M/s Ultimate Service, Show Room No. 55, Sector-5, Swastik Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula.

 

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Amardeep Sharma, Adv., for the complainant.

              Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv., for the OPs.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Dinesh Kumar-complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that he purchased a Sony mobile phone model Xperia Aqua/WHT (12MOBILEPHONE) from OP no.2 vide Invoice No. 828509, Cust Ref. No. S-60989 dated 14.06.2015 with a warranty period of one year i.e from 14.06.2015 to 13.06.2016.  After one month of purchase of mobile i.e on 02.07.2015, the mobile phone started giving problem of restarting i.e automatically switched on and switched off many times in a day. On the same day, the complainant visited authorized service centre OP no. 3 who updated the software of the phone against job sheet No. W115070202810 dated 02.07.2015. After two months again same problem occurred in phone and he visited OP no. 3 who updated the software of the mobile phone without any job sheet as the phone was under warranty. Thereafter, the same problem occurred thrice and after visiting OP no. 3 they just updated the software without any job card. The Service Centre Executive was requested to change the handset as there was some major fault in the phone, but the OP no. 3 refused to replace the mobile of same model. On 13.01.2016, the complainant visited OP No. 3 with the same problem and again requested them to change his mobile as the same was within warranty period but they flatly refused to change the mobile and told the complainant that they only could update its software free of cost as it was under warranty. Besides the restarting problem with the passage of time the mobile set started having problem of “Hanging & Heating”. On 14.05.2016, the complainant again visited the Op No. 3 with the above said problems. Accordingly, the officials of the OP no. 3 issued job sheet to the complainant. It is submitted that after 4 days i.e on 18.05.2016, the complainant took the delivery of the mobile phone but the problems still existed and the OP no. 3 again failed to sought out the problems of the set. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 is a Company incorporated under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. It is submitted that the Op No.3 is the authorized service center of Op No.1 and the Op No.2 is the authorized dealer of Op No.1. It is submitted that the complainant purchased one Sony Xperia M4 Aqua/E2363 with IMEI No.352198070395187 for Rs.22,700/- on 14.06.2015 from OP No.2 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications alongwith the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the mobile. It is submitted that Op No.1 provided a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and could not held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of warranty. The relevant terms of warranty provided by the Op No.1 is as under:-

“Subject to the conditions of this limited warranty, Sony warrants this product to be free from defects in design,

 material and workmanship at the time of original purchase by a Consumer, and for a subsequent period of One (1) year, which is the warranty period.”………

“If, during the warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship, the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein.”

It is submitted that the clause 3 of the terms of warranty provided by the OP No.1 clearly states that:-

“This warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal and customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the Product. Nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid.”

It is submitted that the complainant approached the Op No.3 raising an issue of “Phone Restart by itself” with the mobile handset and the OP No.3 after inspecting the handset observed that there was no issue with the handset, only software was required to be updated which was updated and the mobile phone was delivered to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant approached the OP no. 3 after 7 months from the date of purchase, raising an issue of “ON/OFF” with the mobile handset. The OP no. 3 after inspection observed that the handset was brought in a bad condition. There were scratches on the back cover and back cover lens. It is submitted that the complainant many times approached the OP no. 3 on 14.05.2016 with the problem of Phone restart and hanging. The Op No.3 after inspection observed that the handset was working normally as per its designed specification. After thorough inspection, the OP No.3 found no trouble with the mobile phone and the same was delivered to him after updating software. It is submitted that the complainant approached the warranty period was about to expire in one month. After inspection observed that the handset was not good. The top and bottom mesh was full of dust, there were scratches in the back window camera lens which was not clear due the said reasons. It is submitted that the OP no. 3 in order to resolve the issue with handset replaced “Main Camera+Sub Anteena PBA+ 1^st Mic Rubber+ Chat Camera 5M. It is submitted that the said replacement to parts were done absolutely free of cost. Nothing was charged from the complainant for the said replacement of parts. It is submitted that the complainant approached the OP No. 3, when the handset was about to expire in one month, changed the necessary parts for the smooth and better functioning of the handset. It is further submitted that the handset was brought to OP no. 3 in a bad condition, despite that the OP no. 3 supported the complainant and as good service provider, resolved the issue with regard to the said handset. It is submitted that the first two visits made by the complainant to the OP no. 3, there was no trouble observed with respect to the handset and on the last visit to OP no. 3 carried out necessary replacement of parts despite knowing the fact that the condition of the handset was not good as it was roughly been used by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant again and again approached the Op No.3, but his problem did not resolve. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3. The complainant tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-5 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely and also considered the written arguments submitted by OPs.
5. It is evident from the retail invoice (Annexure C-1) dated 14.06.2015, the complainant purchased Sony Xperia M4/WHT,  Aqua/E2363, IMEI No. 352198070395187 dated 14.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.22,700/-. But the hand set started giving problem after one month of its purchase and was taken to the service center i.e Op No.3 on 02.07.2016 vide Job No. W115070202810 alleging a problem of restarting and the Op No.3 updated the software. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the Op No.3 with the problem of “Restarting, Hanging & Heating Problem” vide job sheet dated 14.05.2016 (Annexure C-3) and the Op No.3 again updated the software. The complainant again visited the OP no. 3 on 11.06.2016 with the problem of Restarting (Annexure C-2).  The complainant claimed that the Ops failed to rectify the defects in the mobile hand set as against it, the Op No.3 maintained that the mobile was inspected and software was upgraded. However, the Ops have not produced any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence in support of this contention. In the absence of any documentary proof that facts, pleading of the Ops are hollow and devoid of any merit. The self serving affidavit of Ops is not sufficient to prove the said fact.
6. Evidently the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself but not for moving the service center and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. Even the defects in the mobile phone after few days of its purchase, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. The complainant has been deprived of possession of the mobile handset. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
7. In the light of above observations, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops are found deficient in not giving proper services to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Ops and the same is allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-
   1. To refund the cost of mobile handset paid by the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum. The complainant is directed to return the defective handset along with accessories.  
   2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, physical harassment.
   3. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
8. This order shall be complied with by the Ops jointly and severely within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

10.11.2016               ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

                                    MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT