BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 01^st DAY OF AUGUST 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund him a sum of Rs.20,490/- being the price of the mobile phone or replace the said mobile phone with a brand new phone of the same price and to pay him compensation of Rs.20,000/- together with cost of litigation, alleging deficiency of service.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant had purchased a brand new Sony Xperia C3 D2502, Mint Mobile Phone from Spice Retail Limited (OP-3) No.13 and 14 Kempegowda Commercial Arcade, K.G Road, Bangalore on 21.10.2014.  While selling the handset OP-3 assured that the phone has two years extended warranty which also includes additional damage cover.  That believing the words of the OP-3 and his assurance the complainant has purchased the said phone.  That the complainant is a practicing lawyer in Bangalore and on 02.02.2015 while he was in the City Civil Court Complex the handset in question slipped from his pant packet and fell down resulting in damage to the handset.  However the display and touch screen were working so as to enable him to attend the immediate phone calls.  That the complainant on 04.02.2015 visited Sony Authorized Service Centre of OP-1 and the executive in the service centre collected the phone with bill and after examination of the phone set for about 15 to 20 minutes by technical team the executive handed back the phone to the complainant stating that there are no similar phones in stock for replacement and asked the complainant to come after one week to get replacement.

Complainant after one week again visited the said Sony Authorized Service Centre in Jayanagar and again the executive/representative after examining/inspection of the handset asked the complainant to come after one week since similar phones are not available for replacement.  That the complainant went on visiting the said service centre time and again but every time he was asked to come after some time as similar phones are out of stock.  That finally the said authorized service centre refused to replace the handset on the ground that the accidental damage cover given for 6 months has expired and he is not entitled for replacement of the damaged phone set.  This happened in the month of November 2015.  That the complainant was put to great injury and inconvenience because of the refusal of OP in replacing the damaged handset despite making him to visit the service centre several times.  That due to the said conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered huge inconvenience and loss in his professional career.  Since OPs refused to replace the damaged handset, the complainant got issued a legal notice.  OPs despite receipt of the notice, failed to comply the demand made in the notice.  Therefore, complainant is forced to approach the Forum for redressal.   

3. Despite service of notice, OPs.2 & 3 remained absent and were placed ex-parte.

4. OP-1 in response to the notice entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

That one Ms.Meena Bose has been authorized by OP-1 to sign the version, to institute, conduct, defend and to perform all acts on behalf of OP-1 by way of Board Resolution dated 04.07.2011.  That with their relentless commitment to quality, consistent dedication to customer satisfaction and unparalleled standards of service, OP-1 is recognized as a benchmark for new age technology, superior quality, digital concepts and personalized service throughout the country.  That OP attends to each and every complaints received by them through their authorized service centre.  That the complainant has filed this complaint on false and frivolous grounds for his illegal enrichment.  It is true that the complainant has purchased the handset in question on 27.04.2015.  That OPs are more than willing to repair the said handset, in case the complainant had approached OPs.  That the complainant never approached OPs.  That without approaching OPs the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention.  That the complainant has not bothered to provide any job sheet number for having visited the authorized service centre.  Without there being any job sheet OPs cannot accept that the complainant visited the authorized service centre for repairs or replacement.  That whenever there is any issues with handset the complainant is required to approach the authorized service centre of OP-1.  That complainant has never approached any authorized service centre of OP-1.  Complainant has invented false and frivolous grounds only for the purpose of filing the present complaint.

For the above, amongst other reasons, OP-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

5. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. The complainant in support of his case tendered his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  OP-1 also tendered their evidence by way of affidavit.  Both the parties have produced documents.  Written arguments have been filed.  We have also heard oral arguments.

7. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

8. Admittedly the complainant purchased the handset in question on 21.10.2014 from OP-3, manufactured by OP-1 by paying a sum of Rs.20,490/-.  It is also not in dispute that, the said handset has two years extended warranty and also includes accidental damage coverage for the entire handset for a period of six months from the date of purchase.  Complainant has produced copy of accidental damage cover for mobile phone.  The said accidental damage cover applies to selected mobile manufactured by OP-1 and the list of mobiles, covered under the said accidental damage cover has been mentioned in the said document.  The mobile purchased by the complainant is one of such mobile mentioned in the said accidental damage cover.  OPs are bound by the terms and conditions governing the said accidental damage cover inclusive of handset purchased by the complainant.  According to clause-3 of the terms and conditions of accidental damage the accidental damage cover commences from the date of purchase of the handset and remains valid for a period of six months from the date of purchase.  In the instant case on hand the complainant has purchased the handset on 21.10.2014, whereas the handset has suffered damage on 02.02.2015.  Thus, when the handset in question suffered damage due to accidental fall, the same was covered by the accidental damage insurance.  The complainant visited the Sony Authorized Service Centre situated at Jayanagar on 04.02.2015 for the purpose of repair/replacement of the said handset.  When the complainant approached the service centre with the handset for repair/replacement the accidental damage cover was till substituting.  Complainant claims that when he handed over the handset to the concerned in the service centre the executive working in the said service centre after inspection of the handset for about 15-20 minutes returned the handset to the complainant stating that they did not have stock of the said model for replacement and asked him to come after one week and so that they can replace the damaged handset with new one.  However, complainant claims that subsequently when he visited the said authorized service centre they went on postponing the replacement on the pretext that new handset is not available in the stock and thus they saw that the insurance cover is lapsed and thereafter refused to replace the handset on the ground that the accidental damage cover has expired. 

9. Admittedly the complainant has not obtained job card or job sheet from the concerned authorized service centre as and when he handed over the handset to the service centre for inspection/examination and for replacement.  OP-1 in their version contended that the complainant never visited the said service centre at any time much less the date mentioned in the complaint and claimed that they are all the while willing to serve the customer as and when they approach with any complaints.  When OPs denied that complainant has not visited their authorized service centre situated at Jayanagar, complainant filed an interim application Under Order XI Rule 14 Read With Section 151 of CPC, which was contested by OP-1 by filing objection statement.  After hearing the said IA came to be allowed by order dated 01.02.2017 and OP-1 was directed to secure the video recording/coverage of 04^th February 2015 at their authorized service centre situated at Jayanagar and produce the same before the Forum by 22.02.2017.  However, OP-1 failed to produce the CCTV footings of the said service centre dated 04^th February 2015.  OP-1 never denied the fact that the said service centre has CCTV coverage.  OP-1 also did not assign any valid and acceptable reason for not producing the CCTV footage of the date in question.  Therefore, an inference can be drawn that OP-1 is deliberately suppressing the CCTV footage of the service centre with an sole intention to deny the complainant his legitimate claim.

10. Though the version and power is signed by one Ms.Meena Bose who claims to be authorized by OP-1 by way of board resolution dated 04.07.2011 to appear in this case and defend OP-1 on these proceedings, but she failed to file affidavit evidence.  However one Mr.Priyank Chauhan claiming to be Officer Customer Care at Sony India Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044, has tendered his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP-1.  Admittedly the said Mr.Priyank Chauhan has not been authorized by the board of directors of OP-1 to appear in this case and defend OP-1 in these proceedings.  Therefore, in our opinion, the affidavit evidence tendered by Mr.Priyank Chauhan cannot be looked into for the simple reason that he is not authorized by OP-1 or OP-2 to tender his evidence by way of affidavit.

11. Merely because the authorized service centre of OP-1 did not issue job card when complainant visited them for repair/replacement of handset, it cannot be said that complainant has not at all visited the said authorized service centre for repairs and replacement of handset in question.  The complainant is an active law practitioner and we don’t find any reason for him to depose falsely against OPs by filing a false complaint.  It appears to us that complainant was compelled to approach OP for replacement of the handset only when the said handset suffered damages due to accidental fall, within six months from the date of purchase of the handset.  We don’t find any malafide intention on the part of complainant in filing the present complaint, as alleged by OP-1.  Complainant has also no any strong reasons to depose falsehood against the OPs regarding their failure to replace the handset.

12. The conduct of OP in refusing to repair/replace the handset in question when he approached them within a period of six months from the date of purchase, amounts to deficiency of service.  The refusal of OPs in repairing/replacing the handset must have certainly put complainant to great hardship and inconvenience.  Admittedly the complainant is unable to make use of the said handset to its full extent because of the damage caused to it.  Therefore, OPs have to be directed to replace the said handset with similar handset or with a appropriate handset of the same price.  Further OPs shall have to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to complainant for having made him to suffer great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony as a result of deficiency of service on their part together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Accordingly point Nos.1 & 2 have been answered.

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OPs are directed to replace Sony Xperia C3 D2502, Mint mobile handset with a new handset to the complainant or refund Rs.20,490/- to the complainant.  Further OPs shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to complainant for the deficiency of service committed together with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

OPs shall comply the said order within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 01^st day of August 2017)

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 14.10.2016.

1. Sri.Rajesh G

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s dated 27.10.2016.

1. Sri.Priyank Chauhan.  

Document produced by the Opposite party/s:

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Vln*