Complaint filed on: 15-06-2012

                                                      Disposed on: 16-11-2012

BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.1205/2012

DATED THIS THE 16^th NOVEMBER 2012

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER

SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER

Complainant: -             

Madhukar Gunjan Chakhaiyar,

No.28, 2^nd Floor, 1^st Cross,

Duo Enclave Layout,

Kodichikannahalli Main Road,

BTM 4^th stage, Bangalore - 76

V/s

Opposite parties: -       

                                                1. Sony Ericsson Mobile

    Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd,

     4^th Floor, Dakha house,

    18/17, Wea Karolbag,

    New Delhi-05

2. Trident Communication

    Sony Ericsson Certified Service

    Centre, No.971, St. Bed layout,

    80 feet road, 4^th block, 

    Koramangala, Bangalore - 34       

ORDER

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs, praying to pass an order for replacement of mobile handset with a new one or refund of amount Rs.24,689=00, and to recover 8 GB data and gather data excel sheet, and to pay him Rs.5,000=00 towards cost and also to pay Rs.13,000=00 towards loss of savings of complainant and in all he claimed Rs.42,689=00.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

The complainant purchased a mobile “Sony Ericsson”  on 22-1-2011 and from beginning, he noticed problems like mobile getting over heat, speaker sound was very less audible, sometimes mobile software or hardware hangs for a long time, mobile camera flash automatically stopped and also other defects. On 5-4-2012 he switched on the mobile in the morning, but it never got charged, then he took the instrument to service center on 6-4-2012. During initial examination, they suspected some hardware issue, so they stated that, they will send the same to the service center, Chennai and advised him to wait for 10 working days to get it done. The complainant enquired after 12 days, and found that Chennai service center had not received the handset, the complainant kept on requesting the OP to accelerate the matter, but the service center guys keep on prolonging the matter. One fine day i.e. on 9-5-2012, the complainant got the call to come and collect the un repaired mobile handset, the reasons were quoting it from the TAX invoice on 894 of “Trident Communication”, Motherboard internal track damage so board cannot be replaced as not available, and finally he left with a waste and useless mobile handset in his hand and he was unwillingly forced to purchase a new mobile costing around Rs.13,000=00 within one year three months, Sony Ericsson stopped the hardware support for high end product, the complainant was harassed by Sony Ericsson company as well as authorized service center. So, the present complaint is filed.

3. After filing the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs, the OPs have appeared through their counsel and filed version, contending interalia as under:

The entire contentions and allegations made against them by the complainant are totally false and there is no basis for the same. The customer visited their service center on 6-4-2012 for submission of warranty handset with a complaint of not switching on and as per him, camera flash was not working and hearing low and as per them, when it is in dead condition, they cannot check the functionality of the phone for other problems. When they opened the handset for checking, they found the liquid log near charging connector and on mother board, and they informed him, there is a liquid log and they will try to service and accordingly taken an estimation of Rs.800=00 and requested to check and let him know the status on same day evening and they did primary service and informed, it is not possible as after cleaning up the board with solution on reloading of operating system also the phone did not turn on, and they informed him that, they are only at L2 level service and any board service, they can send it to Run services info care Pvt. Ltd. Chennai, and try it and it takes minimum 10-12 days time. The complainant accepted and requested them to get as early as possible. On request from their side on 7^th April to RSI for pick up the TNT courier people collected the courier on 9^th April and due to some internal problem, it was not delivered to RSI on time. When customer enquired, they explained him everything and even they gave the docket no. through which the materials was sent. They have not prolonged the matter for any mistake from their side and even they did not lie also, everything was clearly informed to customer. They received from RSI on 29-4-2012 stating that it is PCB internal track short and same PCB cannot be serviceable and new PCB will cost approximately 60-70% of mobile cost and at that point of time PCB was not available and same thing was informed to customer on 3-5-2012 that, it may take 20-30 days where in customer was not ready to wait and collected the handset on 9-5-2012.  After collecting handset, customer complained to Sony Customer care center and at that point of time the representative from Sony has informed the customer again to submit the handset and procure PCB and service will be done, but customer did not approach again to service center.

4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OPs the following points arise for our consideration.

1.                           Whether the complainant proves that, OPs no.1 and 2 are negligent in supplying useless mobile handset and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?

2.                           If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

3.                           What order?

5.     Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the Negative

Point no.2:  In view of the negative findings on the

Point no.1, the complainant is not entitled 

to any relief as prayed in the complaint

          Point no.3:  For the following order

REASONS

          6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced six copies of documents. On the other hand, one Shashirekha w/o. late M.N.Mallikarjun has filed her affidavit on behalf of the OPs and produced 15 copies of documents. We have heard the arguments of both side, and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties meticulously. 

          7. One Madhukar Gunjan Chakhaiyar, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, he purchased a mobile “Sony Ericsson” on 22-1-2011 by paying an amount of Rs.24,689=00 and from beginning, he noticed problem like mobile getting over heat, speaker sound was very less audible, sometimes mobile software or hardware hangs for a long time, mobile camera flash automatically stopped and had many other defects. On 5-4-2012 he switched on the mobile in the morning, but it never happened, he took it to the service center on 6-4-2012. During the initial examination, they suspected some hardware issue, therefore it will be sent to head service center, Chennai Tamilnadu and advised him to wait for 10 working days to get it done, and he enquired after 12 days, and found that Chennai service center had not received the set yet, he kept on requesting them to accelerate/fasten the matter, but the service center guys keep on prolonging the matter. On 9-5-2012 he got the call to come and collect the un-repaired mobile handset with a report as motherboard internal track damage so board cannot be replaced as not available, and finally he left with a waste and useless handset in his hand and he was unwillingly forced to purchase a new mobile costing around Rs.13,000=00, please note-with in one year three months Sony Ericsson stopped the hardware support for high end product and he was harassed by Sony Ericsson company as well as by their authorized service center for almost 15 days, he do not doubt over warranty that is expired this case is all about the support that was not provided to replace the hardware, just after one year three months. He always seek hardware and software maintenance atleast for some year, which he did not receive, he had loss of Rs.24,689=00 and he lost his 8 GB data and contact number of his clients and he was unwillingly forced to purchase a new mobile handset for Rs.13,000=00, therefore he is praying for replacement of mobile handset with a new one or refund of amount Rs.24,689=00, and to recover 8 GB data, and award Rs.5,000=00 and he left no option he purchased new mobile which was a loss of Rs.13,000=00 as he was purchased a new mobile by force for the same, and in all he claimed the total loss of Rs.42,689=00.

8. By a careful reading of the averment of complaint and evidence of the complainant as mentioned above, it is made clear that, the complainant has tendered his evidence in conformity with the averments of the complaint. Let us have a look at the relevant documents of the complainant so as to know whether the oral evidence of the complainant is supported by the documentary evidence or not. Document no.1 of the complainant is Xerox copy of Tax invoice dated 22-01-2011 issued in the name of the complainant by OP for having purchased the mobile handset for Rs.24,689=00. Document no.2 is the copy Tax Invoice given by the Service Center of OP dated 9-5-2012 stating that, mother board internal track damage, and board cannot be repaired as not available, and amount of Rs.150=00 was charged. Document no.3 is the copy RMS version of service center of OP dated 6-4-2012 issued in the name of the complainant stating that, handset badly liquid damage and accordingly the said handset was returned to the complainant un-repaired on 9-5-2012. Document no.4 is the copy of warranty certificate. Document no.5 is the copy of Tax Invoice dated 15-5-2012 issued in the name of the complainant for having purchased another mobile handset by name DELL-Venue Thunder for Rs.13,700=00. Last document is the copy of receipt issued in the name of complainant by Sulekha team for having purchased a mobile handset for actual price of Rs.12,950=00 by giving cash deduction of Rs.1,499=00.

9. The documents of the complainant produced as mentioned above go to demonstrate that, the complainant had purchased a Sony Ericsson mobile handset from OP on 22-1-2012, and upto 5-4-2012 the complainant has used the mobile, and thereafter that mobile started giving trouble to the complainant, so he handed over the mobile hand set to the service center of OP for repair on 6-6-2012, and by that time, the warranty period of mobile handset purchased from the OP was over i.e. completed, the service center of OP tested the mobile handset duly as liquid unit was damaged, so the mobile handset was returned to the complainant without making any repair. Subsequently, on 15-5-20121 the complainant had purchased another mobile handset from Sulekha Thunder for Rs.13,700=00, as the mobile handset purchased from the OP became useless. Now, the complainant has come up with the present complaint claiming Rs.24,689=00 being the price of the mobile handset purchased from the OP, Rs.5, 000=00 towards cost of litigation, and Rs.13,000=00 being the price of a new mobile handset purchased from others, Rs.5,000=00 towards cost of litigation and in all the complainant claimed Rs.42,689=00.

10. During the course of evidence of the complainant has reiterated that, he does not have any doubt over warranty that is expired, and he always seeks hardware and software maintenance atleast for some year, which he did not receive. But it is worthy to be noted that, the complainant has failed to prove with believable material evidence that on what basis or on what ground, he seeks hardware and software maintenance atleast for some year. The evidence in this regard is lacking in its evidence credibility. Having once the warranty period of mobile handset purchased by the complainant from the OPs was expired; the complainant is disentitled to seek for replacement of a new mobile handset in place of old one. The OPs will make repair of the mobile handset of the complainant, if the complainant looks after the repair charges and not at cost of the OPs. The oral evidence of the complainant that, the OPs are negligent in supplying the useless mobile handset to him and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs is not countenanced by convincing documentary evidence, so testimony of the complainant is unworthy of acceptance. At this stage, it is relevant to have look at the oral and documentary evidence of the OPs.        

11. One Shashirekha w/o. late M.N.Mallikarjun, who being the employee of OP has deposed in her affidavit that, the complainant had visited the service center on 6-4-2012 with a complaint along with the handset as not switching on, and after checking the said handset, they found that liquid log in the mother board, near sim connector and charging connector, and showed board condition and informed him that they will try as it was out of warranty and explained about the repair process and he accepted and deposited handset and they have issued job sheet with repair declaration signed by him and the same is marked as Ex.R1 and R2. They only carry L1, L2 level service and L3, L4 mother board servicing for non warranty handsets will be done only in Run service Infocare Pvt. Ltd, Chennai for South and after their service process still the handset was not switching on and informed that it cannot be possible to service, but he was not ready to accept and he wanted the handset to be sent to RSI to try it again, and requested the RSI for courier pickup on 7^th April and TNT courier collected on 9^th April 2012 and informed the complainant that it takes minimum of 10-12 working days, its copy of delivery challan cum gate pass along with courier docket sent to RSI is produced which are marked as Ex.R3 and R4. They have not delayed in sending it to Chennai after a week on 17^th April when they checked with RSI for the repair status, the courier was not yet reached because of some address issue, again by mail they sent the correct address to TNT courier and on 20^th April RSI received and informed the status on 21^st April by phone that it is not possible to repair and were about to send it back the same day but on their request they took another 2-3 days to check all possibilities and on 24^th April they informed that it is mother board internal track short because of liquid log and they informed him through phone the same day that it is not possible to repair, and from RSI they sent back to them on 27^th April and it is received by them on 30^th April and informed him to collect back the handset by SMS on 4^th May and he came on 9^th May to take handset and asked about the replacement of new mother board, and they informed him that it costs approximately 70-75% of the mobile cost and it takes 15-20 days of time to procure it and it is not available at that point of time and he collected the handset on 9^th May 2012. The complainant has spoken to Sony Customer and complained about the problem and not supporting the mother board. Customer care person informed him again to submit the handset to service center and they will try to procure it as early as possible, but the complainant did not approach service center at all, and at any point of time, they acted either negligently or there was any latches on their part and there is no deficiency of service on their part, and they are not liable to pay any damages, so the complaint be dismissed.

12. Let us have a cursory glance at the relevant documents of the OPs. Ex.R1 and R2 are the job sheets and repair declaration issued by OPs, wherein it is stated that, the mother board liquid log and liquid is flown out on mother board. Ex.R3 to R15 go to show that, the mobile handset of the complainant was damaged by liquid and returned the mobile handset to the complainant un-repaired, and the OPs are ready to repair the mobile handset of the complainant, if the complainant looks after the repair charges. The evidence of the employee of OPs that, there is no negligence on part of the OPs, and there is no deficiency of service, and they are ready to repair the mobile handset of the complainant, if the complainant looks after the repair charges, as warranty period was over stands corroborated by documentary evidence of the OPs. Taking the oral and documentary evidence of the OPs, and compare the same with the material evidence of the complainant, it is made unambiguously clear that, the material evidence of OPs is more believable trustworthy and acted upon than the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant. The complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has failed to prove this point by placing clear and tangible evidence, and as such, we answer this point in a negative.

          13. In view of our negative findings on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

          The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. So, under the circumstance, both parties shall bear their own cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.  

          Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 16^th day of November 2012.

MEMBER                 MEMBER                 PRESIDENT