Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/193/2016

Ajay Shukla - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	193 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	17.03.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	26.07.2016

 

 

 

 

Ajay Shukla, S-5, Homeland City Mall, Sai Road, Baddi, District Solan 173205, Himachal Pradesh

 

             …….Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  The Managing Director, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, Delhi 110044.

 

2]  The Service Centre, Rai & Sons, SCO 60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh (UT) 160047.

 

3]  The Shopkeeper or Seller, Babloo Communication, Sai Road, Baddi, Distt. Solan (H.P.) 173205.

 

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

   

 

Argued By: Complainant in person.

Sh.Deepak Sharma, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Vikrant Sharma, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant purchased one Sony Xperia Z3 Compact mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.36,490/- vide Ann.C-3.  It is averred that the said handset started giving problem from the very beginning and the complainant had to travel from Baddi to Chandigarh to get the handset repair from Service Centre at Chandigarh.  It is also averred that the Service Engineer formatted the phone and changed some other settings and gave assurance that now it will work properly.  It is further averred that the said phone again started getting hanged, camera colour problem and getting complete black at times, so it was again deposited with the Opposite Party Service Centre for repair on 2.6.2015.  It is submitted that the handset in question again turned black with same problem in display and therefore, it was again taken to Service Centre on 22.8.2016.  It is also submitted that on every occasion when the handset was deposited with Service Centre, no standby handset was provided to the complainant.  The handset was returned on 12.9.2015 (Ann.C-1).  However, the handset again started giving problem in Dec., 2015 and despite changing the sim card, as advised, the problem did not solve, hence the handset was again deposited with service centre on 19.1.2016 (Ann.C-2).  It is pleaded that the handset in question was not in a condition to be repaired because the parts were unavailable as informed by the Service Centre.  It is also pleaded that the mobile phone was repaired & formatted every time which resulted in losing contacts and loss of many other important documents. It is further pleaded that the handset in question is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, which is beyond repairs.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. 

 

2]       The OPs No.1 to 3 have filed reply and admitted the sale and repair of the handset in question.  It is stated that the complainant after enjoying the handset for almost 5 months, approached Opposite Party NO.2 on 2.6.2015 raising an issue of display flickers and camera of the said mobile handset and on inspection, it was found that the camera problem was due to the scratches on the back cover lens.  However, the problem was rectified by replacing the necessary parts free of cost.  It is also stated that two months thereafter, the complainant again approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 26.8.2015 raising an issue of Display Flickers in the said handset and Opposite Party No.2 carried out necessary replacement of parts for the better functioning of the handset.  The Opposite Party No.2 carried out replacement of parts i.e. CAP USB SUB ASSY White/CAP SIM Sub ASSY White/panel side charger etc. free of cost.  It is asserted that the complainant again approached Opposite Party NO.2 on 12.1.2016 raising an issue of no text or picture in the display of the handset.  It is also asserted that the complainant approached Opposite Party NO.2 at the stage when the warranty period was about to expire in just two days, but ignoring the said fact and considering the complainant to be a valuable customer, the Opposite Party NO.2 again carried out necessary replacement of parts. It is pleaded that every time issue with respect to the said handset was duly resolved by the OPs by carrying out necessary replacement of parts and that too free of cost.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions of the OPs.

 

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]       Admittedly, the complainant purchased Sony Xperia Z3 Compact mobile handset on 15.1.2015 for Rs.36,490/- vide bill Ann.C.  The submissions of the parties on record are enough to establish that the above said mobile handset purchased by the complainant did not function well within the warranty period on numerous occasions and the said handset was returned to the complainant after removing the defects alleged by the complainant on each and every occasions. It is the main grouse of the complainant that still the mobile handset is not working properly and prayed for the refund of the invoice price of the handset claiming there is an inherent manufacturing defect in the handset in question.

 

7]       The Opposite Parties claimed that there is no deficiency in service on their part as they provided due services to the complainant as and when required by him.  The OPs submitted that the complainant himself failed to take due care of the handset in question and as and when they received the mobile set in question for repairs, it was found that the handset was roughly being used by the complainant right from beginning. 

 

8]       To sum up, the non-functioning of the handset in question, is the dispute between the parties. We feel it appropriate to reproduce the contents of the letter dated 10.2.2016, which clinches the matter, sent by the OPs to the complainant wherein, the following has been stated:-    

“As explained earlier, Main Board needs to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the handset.  However, in view to your concern and as a special consideration to you as our valued customer, we had offered 2 months extended warranty on your handset from the date of delivery after service.  Alternatively, we also offered to exchange your handset with a factory reconditioned unit of XPERIA Z3 Compact (without accessories and packing).  This unit will have 3 months warranty from the date of delivery”.

   

9]       After going through the contents of the above letter, no more evidence is required to establish that the handset in question is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect for which the complainant had to suffer many times and the authorised service centre of the Opposite Party i.e. Opposite Party No.2 failed to provide due services to the complainant.  This fact goes uncontroverted that the handset in question is not functioning properly despite numerous services/repairs done to it by the Opposite Party Service Centre.

 

10]      The above said twofold offer made by the OPs prove that the complainant is right in his assertion that set in question is still not functioning properly besides being repaired on number of occasions.  During the course of arguments, the refusal of the complainant to accept the offer of the Opposite Parties to replace the faulty handset in question with the factory reconditioned unit has rightly been made and his claim to get the invoice price is fully justified and genuine as all his attempts to get his mobile fault free remained unsuccessful.

 

11]      Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved, who failed to rectify the set in question despite it being submitted for repairs many a times. In our considered opinion, it would be proper that the complainant be refunded the cost of the handset in the interest of justice and is entitled for compensation for the harassment caused to him on account of deficient services of the OPs. 

        

12]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties is proved and hence, the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite parties are directed as under:-

a]  To refund an amount of Rs.36,490/- being the invoice price of the mobile handset;

b]  To pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficient services.

[c] To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

         This order be complied with by the opposite parties jointly & severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.(a) & (b) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

26^th July, 2016                       

                                                                                      Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER