Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/16/144

Rahul K, S/o Krishnakumar. M, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vigneshwar Services, SONY Authorizied Service Center, - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 30.01.2016

                                                      Disposed on: 17.05.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027    

 

 

CC.No.144/2016

DATED THIS THE17^thMAY OF2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Rahul.K. S/o Krishnakumar.M. B303, JeevanSamskruthi Apartments, 4th Cross, ShiradiSai Nagar, Munnekolala, Bangalore-560 037.   In person	1	Vigneshwar Services, SONY Authorized Service Center, No.659, Ground Floor, 17th ‘D’ Main, 6th Block, Opp.Koramangala Club, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 095.       In person
		2	Sony Mobile Communications (India) Pvt.Ltd., A 31, 2nd Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.   Exparte.

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the opposite parties directing to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for defect of product and deficiency of service, for the harassment and wasted time, and not being able to use or buy any alternative product either or to pay Rs.45,000/- for defect of product and deficiency of service, for the harassment and wasted time, and not being able to use or buy any alternative product either and also to provide a replacement mobile of their latest flagship and extended warranty of one year for the same, to direct each of the employees in the service center to pay Rs.5000/- each to an orphanage for them to know what service is all about, to direct the employee who called the Complainant a mental, to undergo a mandatory medical treatment in a mental hospital for one month, to consider this as a major manufacturing defect and  ban the particular product as many victims like the Complainant would be facing the same issue and a right action to be taken against the Opposite Party, to direct the Opposite Party to pay the cost of the proceedings. 

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are thatthe he bought the mobile Sony XperiaZ3 black color for an amount of Rs.43,865.25 on 11.1.2015, initially he did not find the defect in the speaker of the phone, but it always had a crackling or flapping noise which he did not mind, but later on, he started feeling that noise every time. He had the warranty, so thought he could fix the speaker in the warranty period itself. The Opposite Parties did the first service, they replaced the PCB board, speakers and some of the batteries, after changing all this, the issue was not fixed. He asked for a new phone instead of servicing it for second time, they never agreed, so he gave the phone for the second time, the Opposite Parties had replaced the speaker, but same issue was there after receiving the phone. So he realized that this is not about the service, but the phone itself has the defect, he checked in online forums and new mobiles of the same phone and he found the same everywhere. The Complainant submits that he argued with them many times, he spoke and wrote letter to the Sony Customer support many times, but everything went in vain. The employees were so rude, that whenever he went they did not bother to ask him anything, thinking that he had come to argue. Whenever argument happened, they were asking him to submit the phone for service again and again, if not to adjust with defect and use it. It was his hard earned money, and they were behaving so badly, and infact one of the employees told him that he has a mental block, which makes him hear that sound whereas they could not hear. He asked them to check with any of the customers, but they were not ready to check. After all the arguments, he told them he would be approaching the consumer forum, they were like do whatever he could do. So he decided to approach the Consumer Forum, and after the guidance from the Forum, he had sent them a letter stating the incidents and immediately after few days, they called and told him that they would be giving him a new phone. He told them that the model itself has the defect, even if you give him a new phone and it will have the same problem. They were not agreeing saying that they had verified the new phone and it was not having any problem. He received the phone and same defect was there in the new phone, he told them to give him new model, but they were asking him to pay extra for the same. For a defective phone, they were asking him to pay extra, so he decided to proceed with the consumer forum for the right justice and filed the case.

3.       Notices were ordered issue to the Opposite Parties. The 1^st Opposite Party though did appear in person, did not file the version. Though notice was served on the 2^nd Opposite Party, did not appear, hence, placed exparte.

          4.       The Complainant to substantiate hiscase,filed his affidavit evidence. The Complainant has produced the documents and he also filed the written arguments.Heard the Complainant.

 

          5.       The points that arise for our consideration are:

          1) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the 

part of the OPs, if so, whether the he isentitled for the relief sought

for?

 

          2) What Order?

 

          6.Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1 :Affirmative

Point No.2 :As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

          7. POINT NO.1:    We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint. Though the 1^st Opposite Party did appear, but did not choose to file the version to oppose the claim of the Complainant. So also though the notice served on the 2^nd Opposite Party, who did not appear, hence placed exparte. Under such circumstances, non-appearance/non-filing of the version, amounts to an admission in respect of the grievance of the complainant,in the light of decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd., V/s Aman Kumar Garg.Anyhow we placed reliance on the available materials on record which goes to show that the Complainant has purchased the said mobile handset for an amount of Rs.43,865.25/-on 11.1.2015, upon using he found a defect in the speaker of the mobile and took the mobile to the service center, and the said mobile was under warranty period.After the first service, the issue was not solved and even after arguing every time and even after three services for the same problem, which we have already stated in detail in the foregoing paragraphs, the defect was not fixed, Finally after arguing, the Opposite Parties have agreed to provide a new phone of the same model and upon receiving the new phone, the company checked and find the same defect in the new phone as well, then randomly checked with customers who are using the particular model and again to his surprise all the mobiles had the same defect. This made him confirm that it is not alone about the poor service, but this is a manufacturing defect in the phone and that is why the defect could not be fixed even after repetitive services and also the new phone did not help which fact clearly shows that they failed to deliver quality product and quality service. In this context, the Opposite Party called the Complainant to compromise and convince him for whatever happened and they told him that they would refund 80% or 100% of the mobile’s cost, so that the case could be closed, as he did not interested with their offer and to settle the case outside the forum, as he invested so much of his time, money and energy on travelling every time to the service centers and to the Forum. Moreover, he was not interested to get the money which would have made him selfish as this is a defect in all the phone of that particular model and there are thousands and thousands of users who would be using the phone. Further, the Complainant’s grievance is that they should address this issue as a whole and he stand on behalf of all of them to seek justice. We found there is a considerable force in the contention taken by the Opposite Party as the said mobile handset having the manufacturing defect not only of the Complainant but who have purchased the similar set of mobile handset. The grievance of the Complainant is that the said mobile handset having the same problem,hence, he has sought for Rs.1,00,000/- for defect of product or deficiency of service for the harassment and wasted time and Rs.45,000/- to the Complainant for defect of product and deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation etc.,We have already stated above to deny the claim of the complaint, the Opposite Parties did not contest the matter, which amounts to an admission. Looking to the specific allegation made by the Complainant, i.e. he approached 3 times to the Opposite Parties to get repaired the said handset,but the said manufacturing defect was not rectified. We also noticed a proposal was come forward from the Opposite Parties for the replacement of the new similar set which was also found to be defective. Under such circumstances, this Forum has no other go except to refund an amount of Rs.43,865/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of purchase to till the date of realization. Further, we are of the opinion that the efforts put forth by the Complainant and also for mental agony an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded as compensation and cost of litigation fix at Rs.1000/-.Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative.

          8.       POINT NO.2:In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

        The complaint filed by the Complainants is allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.43,865/-to the Complainant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of purchase of the said mobile handset till realization.

The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation.

Since the 2^nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer, hence liability is placed on the 2^nd Opposite Party to release the said amount.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open forum on 17^thMay2018).

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER	(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

         

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Rahul.K.,who being the Complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc-1	Copy of the proof of purchase
Doc-2	Copy of the first service job sheet
Doc-3	Copy of the second service job sheet
Doc-4	Copy of the third service job sheet
Doc-5	Copy of the medical scan results
Doc-6	Copy of the letter to Opposite Party and acknowledgements

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT