Sony Ericson

adminadmin Administrator
edited November 2013 in Mobile
ORDER

ORDER DELIVERED BY Shri. R.G. PATIL, PRESIDENT


1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]This is a complaint praying to award special compensation towards loss of Rs.50,000-00, the price of new handset of Rs. 6500-00, the cost of old handset of Rs. 3,225-00, the expenses and costs of the complaint of Rs. 3,000-00 from the OPs.

[FONT=&quot]2)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant on [/FONT][FONT=&quot]17-6-2008[/FONT][FONT=&quot] purchased a Sony Ericson T 250 I mobile handset from the OPs for Rs.3225-00 with warranty. On [/FONT][FONT=&quot]5-11-08[/FONT][FONT=&quot] it stopped functioning. The same day he took it to the OPs who kept it with them for repairs and issued bill No 580.The complainant contacted the OPs 3-4 times but the OPs did not return the set. Annoyed with such tendency of the OPs and necessitated, under unavoidable circumstances the complainant purchased another handset. On [/FONT][FONT=&quot]5-12-08[/FONT][FONT=&quot] he issued a notice to the OPs. Neither they replied the notice nor returned the set. There is deficiency of service by the OPs and they are liable.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) The OP-1 filed objections stating that he is mis-joinder to the complaint and does not know any fact of the complaint. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The OP-3 filed WS admitting that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset on [/FONT][FONT=&quot]17-06-08[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and further stating that as per warranty, and terms and conditions the Mobile Company is the necessary party. This OP is not responsible for any defects in the handset. Though this OP got repaired the handset from the Company service center and informed many times by phone and through the concerned shop keeper the complainant purposely did not turn up to take back the set till date. After receipt of notice the OP informed the complainant through phone that the set was repaired. The set is in good condition. There arises no question of deficiency of service by the OP-s and the OPs are not liable. She prays to dismiss the complaint with costs. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The complainant has filed his affidavit as CW-1 and affidavit of one Manoj as CW-2 and got marked Ex.C-1 to C-5. The affidavits of OP-1 as RW-1, OP-3 as RW-2 and affidavit one Gautam Hegde as RW-3 are filed. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The point that arises for our consideration is “Whether there is deficiency of service by the OP ?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The counsel for the complainant averred that the mobile set is purchased from the OPs shop, as they are the dealer. The set has warranty of one year. The set went out of order within warranty period. The set was handed over to the OPs. They kept it for repairs but did not return even after many requests and notice. They avoided replying the notice. Under unavoidable circumstances the complainant being necessitated had to purchase another set. The OPs are responsible as there is deficiency of service. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The counsel for the OPs contended that as per warranty, and terms and conditions the Mobile Company is the necessary party. The Company is not made party to the complaint. This OP is not responsible for any defects in the handset. Though this OP got repaired the handset from the Company service center and informed many times by phone and through the concerned shop keeper the complainant purposely did not turn up to take back the set till date. After receipt of notice the OP informed the complainant through phone that the set was repaired. The set is in good condition. There is no is deficiency of service by the OPs and they are not liable. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents. It is the contention of the complainant that he handed over the defective mobile handset to the OPs for repairs and he OPs did not return the set even after many requests and issue of notice. The CW-2 has stated that on [/FONT][FONT=&quot]3-12-08[/FONT][FONT=&quot] he accompanied the CW-1 to the OPs shop and the OP behaved irresponsibly. The OPs in their WS have admitted the defect in the set and receipt of the notice. There is no record produced by the OPs to show that they have responded to the notice. The RW-2 in her affidavit has sworn to the fact that the handset was repaired and was many times sent to the complainant through RW-3 but the complainant denied to take the set. RW-3 in his affidavit has stated that after repairs he many times took the set to the complainant but he did not take it. The OPs have not explained when they have repaired the set, what were the defects and the reason for delay in repairing the set. It is the responsibility of the dealer to abide by the conditions mentioned in the warranty and to provide immediate relief to the customer. The OPs san such of service motto. It is the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and they are liable. Further it is open to the complainant to implead any party to the complaint. The OPs can not take plea that the complaint is bad for not impleading the Mobile Company party to the complaint.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] The complainant has claimed the refund of purchase price along with some other reliefs, as he purchased another mobile handset. Under the circumstances if we allow the complaint directing the OPs to refund the purchase price of the handset of Rs.3,225-00 it will be justifiable.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] We pass the following Order.[/FONT]
: O R D E R :

The complaint is allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the purchase price of the handset of Rs 3,225-00 (Rs.Three thousand two hundred and twenty five only) to the complainant.
«13

Comments

  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Mr. Nitin Gulati son of Sh. Kewal Krishan Gulati, r/o 1298/112-B, Phase-II, Shaheed Karnail Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

    Versus

    1- Amit Kumar son of Sohan Lal Prop. of M/s B.M. Services, Shop no.6, Pearl Palace, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

    2- Salora International Limited (Branch Office), 682/L, Ist Floor, Model Town, Johal Market, Jalandhar, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

    3- Salora International Limited (Branch Office), SCO 206-207, IInd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

    1- After purchase of mobile Sony Ericsson handset K550i, complainant experienced the same having manufacturing defect. The set was giving problem of poor networking and charging, so it was taken to opposite party no.1 on 2nd June, 2008, who took the handset, assuring to return after repair within 2 days. On 4th June, 2008, the set was returned, but the same problem persisted. Consequently, on 6th June, 2008, the handset was entrusted to opposite party no.1, who then remarked that it would be swapped with another one by opposite party no.2 within a week. After one week, they again took period of 2 days and the swapped handset was delivered to him on 27.6.2008. But that set had also the same problem and it was also not in working condition. Consequently, took up matter through e-mails dated 29th June, 2008 and 6th July, 2008 with opposite party. As services provided by opposite party, were deficient and the handset was not working properly, so served legal notice dated 17.7.2008 on opposite party no.1, requiring them to replace the defective set and pay Rs.10,000/- compensation.

    Opposite party had then taken back that handset from the complainant with understanding that he would change it with a new set. The version was believed and the set was entrusted to opposite party no.1 on 8.8.2008 vide receipt no.14195. He promised to handover new handset within 4 days after obtaining it from opposite party no.3. Then approached opposite party several times, but he evaded replacement of the handset and ultimately, refused to give new set. Consequently, in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for such deficiency of service on part of opposite party, claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- with direction to replace defective mobile handset with fresh one.

    2- Opposite party in their joint written statement, averred that complaint has been filed by the complainant on false, frivolous allegations, so not maintainable. Purchase of set by the complainant and bringing it for repairs, on complaint of defect, is admitted. But claimed that defects so reported, were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. The set was sophisticated electronics gadgets, requiring precautions while using the same. Complainant had used the set for more than 10 months and came to them after a long time on 2.6.2008 for replacement. But that request is not genuine, therefore, not tenable. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is in these circumstances conceded that on 4th June, 2008, handset after repair was returned to the complainant. There was no problem in the set thereafter. Also denied that swapped handset was given to the complainant on 27.6.2008. Service of registered notice by complainant or handing over set for replacement, are also denied. They have prayed dismissal of the complaint.

    3- To prove their respective claims, both parties adduced evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have heard ld. counsel for parties and also scanned the documents and other material placed on the file.

    4- Outrightly, we may say after hearing the parties that case of the complainant is fully born out from material brought on the record by him. The handset was purchased by the complainant for Rs.8700/- vide invoice Ex.C1 dated 8.9.2007. Complainant in support of his allegations, has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1.

    We have no reason to disbelieve the same. Because his assertion that handset had a defect which was taken to opposite party no.1 and after repair, returned to him, but the defect still persisted and thereafter, the same defective set was swapped with another one by opposite party on 27.6.2008, is born out from the record. Ex.C3 is the service job card dated 27.6.2008 of the opposite party, showing that his earlier set was swapped with another one on account of networking, charging and side key problem in the previous set. So, it means the original handset purchased by complainant vide invoice Ex.C1, was defective and the same was swapped with another set by opposite party no.1.

    5- Next allegations of the complainant that swapped set was also having manufacturing defect, forcing him to issue legal notice dated 17.7.2008 Ex.C4 under postal receipts Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 to the opposite party, is also established. Complainant vide that notice, called upon opposite party, to exchange his defective handset with new one and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

    Then complainant claimed that after receipt of such notice, opposite party no.1 obtained the defective handset with a promise to exchange the same with new one. But later on, backed out of such promise. This part of allegations is also thoroughly established from receipt Ex.C2 dated 8.8.2008. Under that receipt, handset of the complainant was received with complaint of not filling battery, USB problem and networking problem. Therefore in these circumstances, we have no hesitation, to believe affidavit Ex.CW1 of the complainant that after receipt of notice Ex.C4, opposite party no.1 took the handset from him and thereafter, never returned it. Complainant in support of his allegations that handset was defective, has placed affidavit Ex.CW2 of his senior Sh. P.S Ghumman.

    6- That handset taken for repairs by opposite party no.1, is still possessed by him, who neither repaired nor replaced it with new one.

    7- Though opposite party no.1 Sh. Amit Kumar has also filed his affidavit in support of defence. But it deserves no consideration, for the reasons that complainant in these circumstances, has been able to establish beyond doubt that the swapped handset was also found defective. Then he lodged complaint and opposite party no.1 on 8.8.2008, took that handset being defective.

    He promised to supply a new handset, which promise was never fulfilled. Sequel to the discussions, we are fully convinced in such circumstances that swapped handset given by opposite party no.1 to the complainant, was also having manufacturing defect. Therefore, it was taken back with promise to exchange the same with new one, which was never done. Consequently, opposite party by retaining defective handset of the complainant, not repairing it or not exchanging the same with new one, certainly deprived the complainant from using the facility, after spending huge amount for purchase of the handset. Therefore, opposite party certainly would be guilty of deficiency in service towards its own consumer.

    8- In these circumstances, we allow this complaint and as a result, direct opposite party to provide a new Sony Ericsson K550i mobile handset to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order and also pay him compensation for causing harassment, anxiety and sufferance, amounting to Rs.3000/- and litigation costs of Rs.1000/-.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Dr. Dalbir Kaur daughter of S. Gurcharan Singh, resident of H./No.1181/1, Harnam Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana.

    Versus

    1- M/s Sonny Ericson, Essar House,P.O. Box 7945m 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034(India.

    2- M/s Essar Telecom Retail Limited, C/o The Mobile Store, Shop no.10, Shastri Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana.

    3- M/s Harjeeo Corporation, 296-BX-Model Town Extn. Near Atta Chakki, Ludhiana.


    1- Complainant purchased mobile handset model W380i, no.000047104, IMEI no.352704023396287 vide invoice dated 23.5.2008 for Rs.8199/- from opposite party no.2, retail seller of the manufacturer of the handset, opposite party no.1. The handset went out of order on 18.11.2008 and the defect was brought to notice of opposite party no.2 through its mobile store, for removing the defect. They referred the complainant to opposite party no.3, authorized service centre of opposite party no.1. They checked the handset and received the same for service on 18.11.2008. Complainant was assured to redeliver the same on 25.11.2008, after removing the defect. On 25.11.2008, was required to come on 2.12.2008, on which date, again time was sought on the ground that part of the set has not been received from the company.

    This continued for another 15 fays and set was not returned after repair despite repeated visits. On 17.12.20008, written request was made to opposite party no.1 & 2 but no reply was received. Non return of the handset after repair, has caused inconvenience to the complainant, who is a practicing doctor and has caused her mental agony and tension besides financial loss. Hence, this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for direction to opposite party to return cost of mobile handset and pay her Rs.20000/- by way of compensation alongwith Rs.2000/- as litigation costs.

    2- None of the opposite parties contested the complaint and as such, are being proceeded exparte.

    3- Though when the case was taken for exparte evidence, opposite party no.2 appeared through counsel, but took no steps to get exparte order set aside.

    4- Complainant led exparte evidence by way of affidavit and documents. Stood heard through her counsel.

    4- Complainant in exparte evidence, tendered her own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith invoice Ex.C2 qua purchase of handset on 23.5.2008. There is a proof that handset developed defect which was handed over to service centre of opposite party, vide service tag Ex.C3, for ringer problem during warranty period. The handset as such, was received by opposite party no.3, service centre of opposite party no.1 and despite receipt of the set, defect therein was neither rectified nor the handset was returned to the complainant. Therefore, we believe affidavit of the complainant that the handset is still with the opposite party.

    5- By not returning the handset to the complainant after repair, opposite party certainly would be guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice, which caused inconvenience to the complainant. Therefore, we pass exparte order, directing opposite parties to pay cost of the handset amounting to Rs.8199/- to the complainant and also pay her compensation of Rs.1000/- for inconvenience and Rs.500/- as litigation costs, within 45 days of copy of receipt of the order
  • Advocate.soniaAdvocate.sonia Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    Sri. M.C. Ashok, S/o. Rudre Gowda,

    Aged 39 years, Coffee Business,

    Chennapura Road,

    CHIKMAGALUR CITY.

    (By Sri. Gerald Dias, Adv.)

    V/s

    OPPONENTS:

    1. M/s. Univercell,

    Univercell Telecommunication –

    India Pvt., Ltd., M.G. Road,

    CHIKMAGALUR.

    2. M/s. Univercell, Regional Office –

    Nos.1 and 2, 3rd Main Road,

    Seshadripuram,

    BANGALORE – 20.

    (Opponents are placed Exparte)

    Written by Sri. H.S. Rudrappa, Member

    - ::: O R D E R ::: -

    1. The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opponents for the deficiency of service and praying to give directions to replace the defective mobile hand set or to refund the sale consideration amount of Rs.15,375/- along with the court costs as detailed in the complaint.

    2. The gist of the complaint and the averments are as below:

    On 07.12.2008 the complainant has purchased a mobile hand set, Sony Ericson G-700 bearing IME:7 No.:35388702155 3451 from the 1st opponent for which the opponent has issued Tax Invoice UKA:135607. Since the hand set was not working satisfactorily, the complainant had contacted and handed over the said hand set for repair with the 1st opponent. The said opponent after getting the mobile hand set repaired at Cell Solutions, Bhanu Kalyana Mantap Building at Hassan, and delivered the same to the complainant on 06.01.2009.

    Inspite of its repair, the hand set again went wrong and it is almost a dead set, the fact of which has been brought to the notice of the opponents. Knowing the fact of the mobile set fully, the opponents sold the same to the complainant, which is having manufacturing defect with the intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain for themselves. Inspite of repeated requests to replace the said hand set with a new one, the opponents have failed to act upon for which he got issued a legal notice dtd.23.02.2009 calling upon the opponents to attend to their request.

    3. Further the complainant has alleged that he is a businessman dealing in purchase of coffee from the growers and selling the same to the coffee curing works. The complainant was using the mobile in question for his business purpose. Hence the opponents are liable to make good the loss with the result the complainant has suffered for more than Rs.25,000/-. Hence, this complaint for the above referred reliefs.

    4. On receipt of the complaint, this Forum has issued notice to the opponents calling them to appear and submit their version. Inspite of service of notice, the opponents neither have appeared in person nor through their legal counsel, but remained aloof from the court proceedings and therefore, we have set them as exparte.

    5. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as PW.1 and sworn before this Forum and produced the documents along with one Mobile Hand Set in question, which are marked as Exs.P1 to P4 and the Hand Set as M.O.1 respectively.

    6. As the opponents have been placed exparte, ultimately we heard the arguments on merits from the complainant.

    7. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:

    i) Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

    ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opponents?

    iii) Whether the complainant establishes his claim alleging deficiency of service?

    iv) What Order?

    8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

    i) Point No.1: Yes.

    ii) Point No.2: Yes.

    iii) Point No.3: Yes.

    iv) Point No.4: See the operative portion of

    the order.
    - ::: R E A S O N S ::: -

    9. Point No.1: From the records placed before this Forum, as per the Tax Invoice dtd.07.12.2008, the complainant has purchased one Sony Ericson G.700 IME:35388702155 3451 against the payment of Rs.15,375/- (Rupees: Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred Seventy five only). As the consideration amount of Rs.15,375/- was passed on to the opponents, invariably, the relationship of consumer and seller has been established and the complaint false well within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is right in approaching this Forum for ventilating his grievances as per the existing provisions. Therefore, we answer this point in favour of the complainant and hold that he is a consumer.

    10. Point No.2(a): From the records available with this Forum, we have to establish as to whether there is any deficiency of service crept in on the part of the opponent and also to know the veracity and genuineness of the claim. The complainant has produced a copy of the tax invoice dtd.07.12.2008 to show that he has purchased a mobile hand set. Further the complainant has produced a legal notice dtd.23.02.2009 addressed to the opponents requesting them to replace with a new hand set, which is marked as Ex.P2.

    On perusal of this exhibit produced by the complainant, we noticed that the opponents have not rectified the defects of the mobile hand set in question. By perusing the Ex.P2, it is crystal clear that the opponents have failed to give adequate remedy to the demands of the complainant, which is a well nigh evident that the opponent has not rendered service, which tantamount to deficiency of service.

    b) From the Ex.P1 brought on record clearly indicates that the opponents have collected the disputed mobile hand set and got it repaired through their agents M/s Cell Solutions, Hassan and delivered it to the complainant on 06.01.2009 will certainly vindicates the claim of the complainant that the same set under dispute is having certain inherent manufacturing defect.

    11. Point No.3(a): The hub of the complainant is that the opponents have dodged on one pretext or the other to replace the handset and we observed that the opponent has adopted a dilly-dally attitude without any valid reasons and failed to attend to the request of the complainant in rectifying the inherent defects of the mobile hand set. Since the consumer dispute has arisen, the parties were called upon to file their claims in the form of affidavit and documents, for which the complainant has filed the same, whereas the opponents did not chose to file their claims and remained absent which leads us to draw an inference that the opponents are admitting the allegations made by the complainant in toto, which has been construed as an act of unimpeachable evidence in favour of the complainant.

    Under these circumstances, our observation clearly goes to show that the opponents by their omissions and commissions remained deficiency in rendering the services as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we record our views in favour of the complainant.

    b) We noticed that the opponents have sold a defective hand set and failed to rectify the same, which is nothing but adopting unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get back new trouble free hand set in place of old one.

    c) So far as the compensation is concerned the complainant has not placed any break-up details and documents to show that he has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. However, in the interest of justice, he is entitled to get Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for the utter negligence and inconvenience caused by the opponents along with court costs of Rs.1,000/-.

    12. Point No.4: In view of our findings in the foregoing paragraphs, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed and therefore, we inclined to pass the following order:

    - :::O R D E R::: -

    1. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

    2. The opponent is hereby directed to replace the defective Sony Ericson Mobile Hand Set in question with a new one.

    3. The opponents are also liable to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for their unfair trade practice and causing inconvenience to the complainant along with court costs of Rs.1,000/- amounting to Rs.4,000/-, within one month from the date of issue of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 9% P.A. from the date of default till the realisation.
  • Advocate.soniaAdvocate.sonia Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    Mr. Deepak Somnath Kore,

    R/at : 176/A2/26,

    Parvati Gaon, Pune – 411 009. … COMPLAINANT

    : Versus :



    1. Sony India P.Ltd.,

    Address :- Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

    A-31, Mohan Co-Op. Indl. Estate,

    Mathura Road, New Delhi – 44.



    2. Dass Electric Trading Co.(P) Ltd.,

    5, Chetna Apts., Saifee Lane,

    Camp, Pune – 411 001.



    3. Salora International Ltd.,

    Punjab Co-Op. Hsg. Soc.,

    Plot No. 1, 687/8, Bibvewadi,

    Pune – 411 037. … OPPOSITE PARTIES


    // JUDGMENT //

    The present complaint is lie in a very narrow compass. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has filed the present complaint and has claimed various reliefs, as prayed in the complaint application.

    [2] The Complainant had purchased one mobile handset manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 from the Opposite Party No.2 for Rs. 13,500/-. The particulars of the said mobile is as under :-

    Model No. W 810i, S.No.B.D. 3055 Y WOD,

    IMEL No. 35233701 – 089098-6

    Battery No. 006331 PTKMBN 06W11

    Speaker No. MPS-60-N-12878

    Bill No. 3818 LSR dtd.13th Feb. 2007.

    [3] In his complaint, he further stated that the said mobile set was not functioning properly. Mainly, battery display and charging was not shown correctly. The said defects were shown to the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 regretted and assured that all the defects in the said handset would be cured and if not replacement to the same would be made.

    With these, the Opposite Party No.2 requested the Complainant to approach the Opposite Party No.3, who was authorized for repairing. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3. At that time, the Opposite Party No.3 was very discourteous and reluctant to repair. Hence the Complainant was forced to visit number of times to the Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant sent e-mails to the seniors with the defects of the handset. The Opposite Party No.3 had kept the said handset for a long period and wrote that “no fault and return back”. Though it was under warranty, inspite of repairs, the handset was not working satisfactorily. Due to this, the Complainant was to suffer a lot of inconvenience. The arrogant and irresponsible behaviour of the Opposite Parties has made the Complainant very humiliating.

    [4] The Complainant gave the said handset for repairs to the Opposite Party No.3. At that time, the Opposite Party No.3 has corrupted the important data. In this process, the Complainant had lodged number of complaints with In-charge Senior Persons, who after two months refused replacement. In the meanwhile, the Complainant written complaint on e-mail, however the Opposite Parties never responded.


    [5] Due to the negligent behaviour of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant suffered a lot of inconvenience and harassment, so he lodged the complaint with the Forum praying the following relief :


    1. The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 be ordered and directed to give new handset of Sony Ericsson W810i to the Complainant.

    2. In the alternative, the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 be ordered and directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.13,500/- being the price of the said mobile alongwith Bank rate interest till date.

    3. The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally be ordered and directed to pay compensation at Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant.

    4. The cost of the complaint be awarded.

    5. Such other order and direction be given to the Opposite Parties as may be deemed just and equitable.

    6. Compensation from all jointly or severally any one of them.


    [6] Alongwith the complaint application, the Complainant has also filed relevant documents, such as, affidavit, receipts and correspondence etc..


    [7] After the issuance of the notice of the Forum, the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 have appeared and resisted the claim by filing their respective written versions and affidavits.


    [8] The contention of the Opposite Party No.1 is only that the issue relates to alleged deficiency in service in respect of Sony Ericsson W810i model handset, of which, the Opposite Party No.1 is neither the manufacturer nor the repair service provider for the said mobile handset. Hence the Opposite Party No.1 may be discharged from the case.

    [9] The Opposite Party No.2 stated that as far as repairing of any product is concerned, since it requires diagrams of the circuit and technical expertise, it is only done by the manufacturer or their authorized service agent. So we directed the Complainant to the authorized service agents appointed by the Manufacturer for repairs.

    [10] The Opposite Party No.3 has denied the complaint and stated further that the complaint of the Complainant is very vague. It is also further stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction as in their job-sheet, specifically mentioned that “the dispute shall be referred to the Arbitrator”. The Complainant has purposefully avoided to produce the reverse side of the job-sheet which states the terms and conditions in respect of service and repairs. It is further stated that the Complainant in para (4) has given the list of complaints made by him, however, the Complainant has neither produced any job-sheet for the alleged complaint on record and not stated as to when the Complainant had received the handset after repairs. According to the Opposite Party No.3, it is totally false that the Opposite Party No.3 did not give proper service and not adhered warranty rules. In written version particularly, para (15), it is averred by the Opposite Party No. 3 that the Complainant has received the replacement of the handset, which the Complainant has purposefully suppressed the material fact from the Hon’ble Forum.

    Even the Complainant has produced a copy of the job-sheet on the record, which is given to him while taking the same for replacement by the Opposite Party No.3. But the Complainant has avoided to produce the copy of the job-sheet, which contains his signature of receiving replacement delivery. The Opposite Party No.3 had replaced the handset, but the Complainant had again submitted that the said replaced handset is also having the same problems, which is not possible. Even otherwise, if the Complainant still wished to another replacement of handset, the Complainant ought to have submitted to the Opposite Party No.3 accordingly and the Opposite Party No.3 would have sent it to the Company, the ultimate decision being of the Company after checking the handset sent for replacement which the Complainant has not done at all after returning the replaced handset to him after thorough checking. Thus the Opposite Party No.3 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

    [11] We have gone through all the case-papers, pleadings of the parties, evidence on the record. We also heard the arguments of all the parties.

    The points which arose for our consideration are as under :-

    Points Answers

    1. Whether the Complainant is a “consumer”? Yes

    2. Whether the Opposite Parties have committed

    deficiency in service? No

    3. What order? As per final order.


    REASONS :

    [12] Admittedly, the Complainant is a “consumer” within the meaning of definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Even though, arbitration is specifically mentioned, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as per the provisions of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, which is in addition but not in derogation.

    [13] Even though the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 are the parties to the present complaint, according to us, they are the formal parties and therefore they are absolved from the complaint. It is evident from the record and proceedings that the Opposite Party No.3 has fully co-operated and replaced the alleged handset to the Complainant. There is no substance in the complaint.

    [14] The Complainant in his complaint has averred all the defects in handset and availed the repairs and the replacement from the Opposite Party No.3. The replacement has not been disclosed by the Complainant, which comes under suppression of material fact. While arguing the matter, it has become crystal clear that the Complainant is only interested in compensation part from the present dispute. As the Opposite Party No.3 had given full co-operation and replaced the handset, no specific defect was proved and only for the whims of the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.3 was still ready to replace the handset, which he refused in the open Forum, saying that the Opposite Parties have harassed tremendously. The Forum is of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove the particular defects of the handset by producing the concrete evidence. As also, the replaced handset is already in the custody of the Complainant, the Form cannot grant any reliefs in this regard. According to us, the Complainant has suppressed the material facts, hence we dismissed the complaint with the following order :-


    // O R D E R //
    The complaint stands dismissed
  • mohnishmohnish Junior Member
    edited October 2009
    I brought a sony ericsson K810i on 4th of march 2009. The handset worked like a charm for 3 months, then i started having problems with its joystick and the keypad also. I submitted my handset to the nearest Sony Ericsson service center, they repaired it and told me that the joystick oh my phone has been changed. After 4 hours or so the phone got stuck again with the same joystick problem and since then i hav submitted my handset almost 5 times to the service center and its still there. Sony Ericsson has cheated me by selling me a defective handset. Please help me out.




    regards,
    Mohnish Rohatgi
    +919868077198
  • edited October 2009
    i brought sony ericsson mobile phone on 2008-07-19 model no w760i from sunny electronics,jaipur,rajasthan. handset is working properly for 6 months(approx) but after that phone has been submitted to service center for 4 times n first time they replaced I.C.they said now no problem will come but after 2 months again problem come of /freeze problem on/off problem.after 10 days they return my phone back but again after 20 days problem arrived of upper keypad low key pad problem. now they are replacing my phone and giving me w595 in exchange with w760i but the motive of purchsing w760i is not solved in w595 as it does not have motion gameing option n not have gps navigation.so please help me out.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Yelugoty Sreedhar,

    S/o. Y.Reddaiah,

    Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Sai Suja Apartments,

    D.No.9-66/23, New Maruthi Nagar,

    Tirupati. … Complainant



    And



    1. The Manager,

    Sony Ericssion Authorised Service Centre,

    D.No.137A, K.K.Layout,

    Tirupati.



    2. The Manager,

    GOLDEN Plaza,

    115, Central Park,

    Tirupati. … Opposite parties.







    ORDER




    This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one or in the alternative to refund the sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- along with interest from the date of purchase, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship and to pay the costs of the complaint to the complainant.

    2. The averments of the complaint in brief are :- The complainant purchased W5801-Sony Ericsson, IMIE No.359285016155511 mobile phone from opposite party No.2 retailer for Rs.12,000/- on 20.12.2007. The complainant purchased the mobile phone after being satisfied with the quality and warranty for such mobile phones and upto a period of two months since the purchase the complainant was very much satisfied with the working of the mobile phone.


    But, subsequently the mobile phone used to went into switched off mode frequently. The complainant had to switch the phone on as and when it went into switched off mode. The complainant had been reporting the same to opposite party No.1, the authorized service agent and opposite party No.2, the retailer, but they were giving evasive replies. On 13.11.2008 the complainant approached opposite party No.2, who directed him to approach opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 for the purpose of servicing the mobile phone received the same from the complainant and returned the same on 17.11.2008 by charging Rs.600/- citing some reasons of replacement of certain part in the mobile phone.


    The opposite party No.1 assured that the defect is rectified and there will not be any problem. Unfortunately, the problem with the mobile phone did not get rectified and the complainant has been facing the same problem. The complainant intimated the same to the opposite parties, but they gave reluctant answers. The complainant, who spent Rs.12,000/- for the purchase of mobile phone, is subjected to a lot of mental agony and hardship as the mobile phone falls short of quality and not suitable for use. The opposite parties are liable to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one as covered by the terms of the opposite parties warranty given on 20.12.2007. The opposite party No.1 is also liable to refund the amount of Rs.600/- taken by them under the guise of rectifying the defect.


    The opposite party No.2, being the retailer of defective mobile phone is bound to compensate the complainant for selling such defective product. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 21.11.2008 and opposite party No.2 gave reply disclaiming any liability. The opposite party No.1 neither replied nor complied. Since the period of 3 months from the date of sending legal notice, the complainant had been facing the problem with the mobile phone getting into switched off mode frequently, which caused him lot of hardship by way of loss of work as the nature of his work necessitates himself to be available on the phone to his prospective customers. Because of the defect in the mobile phone the complainant had to loose a suitable portion of his work and that has lead to lot of mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

    3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint. In the counter filed on behalf of opposite party No.1, while denying the allegations made in the complaint, it is inter alia stated that the warranty is valid only if the original proof of purchase issued by a Sony Ericsson authorized dealer and it will cover subject to terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 17.11.2008 but not on 13.11.2008 and on that day, the opposite party No.1 clearly stated that the phone was dead due to liquid damage and it will not cover the warranty. The opposite party No.1 issued estimation slip on 17.11.2008 estimating the charges of Rs.600/- by mentioning O/W i.e. out of warranty.


    The complainant suppressed the same and approached this Forum to get wrongful gain. The complainant was not interested to get the mobile repaired. So, he went away without handing-over the mobile. The damage to the mobile arose due to negligence of the complainant and subsequently the complainant never approached opposite party No.1. Condition No.3 at page No.74 of warranty books reads “This warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to nominal tear and wear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the nominal and customary manner, in accordance with the Sony Ericsson instructions for use and maintenance of the product.


    Nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, software or hardware modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid”. The complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any damages by way of compensation and incidental costs. The complainant unnecessarily dragged the organization to the Court of law and thereby caused much damage to the reputation of the organization for which he is liable for both criminal and civil action. The complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs for non-joinder of necessary parties.

    4. In the objections filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, while denying the material allegations made in the complaint, it is inter alia stated that though the complainant purchased the mobile phone from opposite party No.2, subsequently the opposite party No.2 is not aware of the events that took place as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party No.2 is only a dealer in mobile phones. The warranty and other services that are to be attended to the mobile phone in case of defect have to be done by opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is no way connected to the service centre. It is entirely the province of opposite party No.1.


    Hence, the opposite party No.2 is not liable to any of the consequences after selling of the mobile phone. The complainant never contacted opposite party No.2 at any time. It was not brought to the notice of opposite party No.2 about the defects in the mobile prior to issue of notice. The opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service towards the complainant. If at all there is any warranty, the complainant can avail it from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is unnecessarily added as party and hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. The opposite party No.2 is not liable for any damages. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    5. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs. A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is bill dt:20.12.2007 for Rs.12,000/- issued by opposite party No.2 in the name of the complainant. Ex.A2 is estimation dt:17.11.2008 issued by opposite party No.1. Ex.A3 is office copy of legal notice dt:21.11.2008 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ex.A4 is reply notice got issued by opposite party No.2 to the advocate for complainant. Ex.A5 is warranty certificate of Sony Ericsson issued by opposite party No.2.

    6. In support of the case set up in the counter, the opposite party No.1 filed the booklet containing terms and conditions of the warranty, which is marked as Ex.B1. No documents are, however, filed on behalf of opposite party No.2.

    7. On behalf of the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel of both sides.

    8. On the basis of pleadings of both sides, the points that arise for determination are:-

    1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?

    3. To what result?

    9. Point No.1:- The brief facts of the case are:- The complainant on 20.12.2007 purchased W5801-Sony Ericsson mobile phone from opposite party No.2, who is the retail dealer of Sony Ericsson products for Rs.12,000/-. The opposite party No.2 issued Ex.A1 bill. The complainant approached opposite party No.1, the authorized service centre of Sony Ericsson complaining for rectifying the defect in the mobile phone.


    The opposite party No.1 issued Ex.A2 estimation dt:17.11.2008 estimating the cost of some part and service charge at Rs.600/-. The complainant got issued Ex.A3 legal notice to both the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the defective mobile with new one and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite party No.1 got issued Ex.A4 reply notice stating that he is only a retailer and he is not liable for any of the consequences after the selling of the mobile phone. The complainant filed the complaint on 26.05.2009.

    10. The complainant’s case is that since two months after the date of purchase of mobile phone he has been facing the problem of the mobile phone getting into switched off mode frequently, that though he reported the same to opposite parties they never tried to help him by rectifying the defect and that when he approached opposite party No.1, as directed by opposite party No.2, on 13.11.2008 for the purpose of servicing, the phone was returned to him on 17.11.2008 by charging Rs.600/-.


    His further case is that even subsequently he has been facing the same problem of mobile phone getting into switched off mode, that when he got issued legal notice to the opposite parties, the opposite party No.2 gave reply disclaiming any liability and opposite party No.1 neither replied nor complied to the notice and that opposite parties 1 and 2, who committed deficiency in service towards him, are liable to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one or in the alternative refund the sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship to him and to pay the costs of the complaint.

    11. The case of opposite party No.1 is that when the complainant approached the service centre on 17.11.2008, he was informed that the mobile phone was dead due to liquid damage, that as warranty does not cover damage resulting from liquid, they issued estimation slip estimating the charge for repair at Rs.600/- and that the complainant without handing-over the mobile for repair went away. The case of opposite party No.2 is that after purchasing the mobile phone the complainant never approached them, that they are only dealers in mobile phones and that in case of defect in the mobile phone, the opposite party No.1 has to rectify the same and that they are not liable for any consequences after the selling of the mobile phone.

    12. The complainant adduced evidence by filing his affidavit stating that he has been facing the problem of mobile phone getting into switched off mode frequently and though he has been reporting the same to opposite parties they never tried to get the defect rectified. The complainant also filed 3rd party affidavit of one R.Thulasiram Reddy.


    The said Thulasiram Reddy in his affidavit stated that he is a businessman running Cell and Watch shop at Hello Mobiles for the last 11 years, that when the complainant brought his Sony Ericsson mobile phone for repair, he informed him that he cannot attend to the mobile as he is not a authorized person to service such mobiles and that it is his opinion that the said mobile phone is getting switched off automatically because of some problem with the board. The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence by filing their affidavits. Admittedly, when the complainant approached opposite party No.1 service centre, the opposite party No.1 issued Ex.A2 estimation. By the date of Ex.A2 estimation the warranty was in force.


    According to opposite party No.1 the warranty does not cover as the damage was resulting from liquid. In Ex.A1 it is noted “O/W”. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that O/W indicates “out of warranty”. Ex.A2 shows that for service charge and replacement of part, the opposite party No.1 estimated Rs.600/-. In Ex.A2 it is not noted that the damage to the mobile phone was resulting from liquid. As the complainant approached opposite party No.1 within the warranty period complaining some defect in the mobile phone, the opposite party No.1 ought to have issued job card mentioning the complaint made by the complainant. There is no explanation from opposite party No.1 why the job card was not issued when the complainant approached the service centre with some defect in the mobile phone.


    When the complainant got issued legal notice alleging that he has been facing the problem of mobile phone getting into switched off mode very frequently, both the opposite parties never tried to help him in rectifying the defect. The opposite party No.1 kept quiet. Only before this Forum, the opposite party No.1 came up with the version that the warranty does not cover to the mobile phone as the damage was resulting from liquid. There was an opportunity to opposite party No.1 to deny the plea of the complainant at the time of Ex.A2 and after receipt of legal notice. The plea of liquid damage now taken by the opposite party No.1, in our view, is an after thought. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant submitted that if there is problem with the board the defect cannot be rectified.


    The counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 did not deny the same. The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not also come forward to rectify the defect in the mobile phone. The plea of opposite party No.2 that after selling of the mobile phone they are not liable for any consequences cannot be accepted. The opposite parties failed to get the defect in the mobile phone rectified. Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the complainant.

    13. Point No.2:- In view of our finding on point No.1, the complainant is entitled for replacement of defective mobile phone with a new one. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused to him. There is absolutely no basis for claiming such huge amount towards compensation. In our view, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint. Hence, we find that the complainant is entitled for replacement of defective mobile phone W5801-Sony Ericsson, IMIE No.359285016155511 with a new one on the complainant surrendering the defective mobile phone and Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint. This point is accordingly answered.

    14. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to replace the defective mobile phone W5801-Sony Ericsson, IMIE No.359285016155511 with a new one on the complainant surrendering the defective mobile phone, to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation and to pay Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Yelugoty Sreedhar,

    S/o. Y.Reddaiah,

    Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Sai Suja Apartments,

    D.No.9-66/23, New Maruthi Nagar,

    Tirupati. … Complainant



    And



    1. The Manager,

    SonyEricssion Authorised Service Centre,

    D.No.137A, K.K.Layout,

    Tirupati.



    2. The Manager,

    GOLDEN Plaza,

    115, Central Park,

    Tirupati. … Opposite parties.






    ORDER





    This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one or in the alternative to refund the sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- along with interest from the date of purchase, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship and to pay the costs of the complaint to the complainant.

    2. The averments of the complaint in brief are :- The complainant purchased W5801-Sony Ericsson, IMIE No.359285016155511 mobile phone from opposite party No.2 retailer for Rs.12,000/- on 20.12.2007. The complainant purchased the mobile phone after being satisfied with the quality and warranty for such mobile phones and upto a period of two months since the purchase the complainant was very much satisfied with the working of the mobile phone. But, subsequently the mobile phone used to went into switched off mode frequently. The complainant had to switch the phone on as and when it went into switched off mode.


    The complainant had been reporting the same to opposite party No.1, the authorized service agent and opposite party No.2, the retailer, but they were giving evasive replies. On 13.11.2008 the complainant approached opposite party No.2, who directed him to approach opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 for the purpose of servicing the mobile phone received the same from the complainant and returned the same on 17.11.2008 by charging Rs.600/- citing some reasons of replacement of certain part in the mobile phone.


    The opposite party No.1 assured that the defect is rectified and there will not be any problem. Unfortunately, the problem with the mobile phone did not get rectified and the complainant has been facing the same problem. The complainant intimated the same to the opposite parties, but they gave reluctant answers. The complainant, who spent Rs.12,000/- for the purchase of mobile phone, is subjected to a lot of mental agony and hardship as the mobile phone falls short of quality and not suitable for use.


    The opposite parties are liable to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one as covered by the terms of the opposite parties warranty given on 20.12.2007. The opposite party No.1 is also liable to refund the amount of Rs.600/- taken by them under the guise of rectifying the defect. The opposite party No.2, being the retailer of defective mobile phone is bound to compensate the complainant for selling such defective product. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 21.11.2008 and opposite party No.2 gave reply disclaiming any liability.


    The opposite party No.1 neither replied nor complied. Since the period of 3 months from the date of sending legal notice, the complainant had been facing the problem with the mobile phone getting into switched off mode frequently, which caused him lot of hardship by way of loss of work as the nature of his work necessitates himself to be available on the phone to his prospective customers. Because of the defect in the mobile phone the complainant had to loose a suitable portion of his work and that has lead to lot of mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

    3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint. In the counter filed on behalf of opposite party No.1, while denying the allegations made in the complaint, it is inter alia stated that the warranty is valid only if the original proof of purchase issued by a Sony Ericsson authorized dealer and it will cover subject to terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 17.11.2008 but not on 13.11.2008 and on that day, the opposite party No.1 clearly stated that the phone was dead due to liquid damage and it will not cover the warranty. The opposite party No.1 issued estimation slip on 17.11.2008 estimating the charges of Rs.600/- by mentioning O/W i.e. out of warranty. The complainant suppressed the same and approached this Forum to get wrongful gain. The complainant was not interested to get the mobile repaired. So, he went away without handing-over the mobile.


    The damage to the mobile arose due to negligence of the complainant and subsequently the complainant never approached opposite party No.1. Condition No.3 at page No.74 of warranty books reads “This warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to nominal tear and wear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the nominal and customary manner, in accordance with the Sony Ericsson instructions for use and maintenance of the product. Nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, software or hardware modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid”. The complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands.


    There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any damages by way of compensation and incidental costs. The complainant unnecessarily dragged the organization to the Court of law and thereby caused much damage to the reputation of the organization for which he is liable for both criminal and civil action. The complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs for non-joinder of necessary parties.

    4. In the objections filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, while denying the material allegations made in the complaint, it is inter alia stated that though the complainant purchased the mobile phone from opposite party No.2, subsequently the opposite party No.2 is not aware of the events that took place as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party No.2 is only a dealer in mobile phones. The warranty and other services that are to be attended to the mobile phone in case of defect have to be done by opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is no way connected to the service centre. It is entirely the province of opposite party No.1. Hence, the opposite party No.2 is not liable to any of the consequences after selling of the mobile phone. The complainant never contacted opposite party No.2 at any time.


    It was not brought to the notice of opposite party No.2 about the defects in the mobile prior to issue of notice. The opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service towards the complainant. If at all there is any warranty, the complainant can avail it from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is unnecessarily added as party and hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. The opposite party No.2 is not liable for any damages. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    5. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs. A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is bill dt:20.12.2007 for Rs.12,000/- issued by opposite party No.2 in the name of the complainant. Ex.A2 is estimation dt:17.11.2008 issued by opposite party No.1. Ex.A3 is office copy of legal notice dt:21.11.2008 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ex.A4 is reply notice got issued by opposite party No.2 to the advocate for complainant. Ex.A5 is warranty certificate of Sony Ericsson issued by opposite party No.2.

    6. In support of the case set up in the counter, the opposite party No.1 filed the booklet containing terms and conditions of the warranty, which is marked as Ex.B1. No documents are, however, filed on behalf of opposite party No.2.

    7. On behalf of the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel of both sides.

    8. On the basis of pleadings of both sides, the points that arise for determination are:-

    1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?

    3. To what result?

    9. Point No.1:- The brief facts of the case are:- The complainant on 20.12.2007 purchased W5801-Sony Ericsson mobile phone from opposite party No.2, who is the retail dealer of Sony Ericsson products for Rs.12,000/-.


    The opposite party No.2 issued Ex.A1 bill. The complainant approached opposite party No.1, the authorized service centre of Sony Ericsson complaining for rectifying the defect in the mobile phone. The opposite party No.1 issued Ex.A2 estimation dt:17.11.2008 estimating the cost of some part and service charge at Rs.600/-. The complainant got issued Ex.A3 legal notice to both the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the defective mobile with new one and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite party No.1 got issued Ex.A4 reply notice stating that he is only a retailer and he is not liable for any of the consequences after the selling of the mobile phone. The complainant filed the complaint on 26.05.2009.

    10. The complainant’s case is that since two months after the date of purchase of mobile phone he has been facing the problem of the mobile phone getting into switched off mode frequently, that though he reported the same to opposite parties they never tried to help him by rectifying the defect and that when he approached opposite party No.1, as directed by opposite party No.2, on 13.11.2008 for the purpose of servicing, the phone was returned to him on 17.11.2008 by charging Rs.600/-.


    His further case is that even subsequently he has been facing the same problem of mobile phone getting into switched off mode, that when he got issued legal notice to the opposite parties, the opposite party No.2 gave reply disclaiming any liability and opposite party No.1 neither replied nor complied to the notice and that opposite parties 1 and 2, who committed deficiency in service towards him, are liable to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one or in the alternative refund the sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship to him and to pay the costs of the complaint.

    11. The case of opposite party No.1 is that when the complainant approached the service centre on 17.11.2008, he was informed that the mobile phone was dead due to liquid damage, that as warranty does not cover damage resulting from liquid, they issued estimation slip estimating the charge for repair at Rs.600/- and that the complainant without handing-over the mobile for repair went away.


    The case of opposite party No.2 is that after purchasing the mobile phone the complainant never approached them, that they are only dealers in mobile phones and that in case of defect in the mobile phone, the opposite party No.1 has to rectify the same and that they are not liable for any consequences after the selling of the mobile phone.

    12. The complainant adduced evidence by filing his affidavit stating that he has been facing the problem of mobile phone getting into switched off mode frequently and though he has been reporting the same to opposite parties they never tried to get the defect rectified. The complainant also filed 3rd party affidavit of one R.Thulasiram Reddy.


    The said Thulasiram Reddy in his affidavit stated that he is a businessman running Cell and Watch shop at Hello Mobiles for the last 11 years, that when the complainant brought his Sony Ericsson mobile phone for repair, he informed him that he cannot attend to the mobile as he is not a authorized person to service such mobiles and that it is his opinion that the said mobile phone is getting switched off automatically because of some problem with the board.


    The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence by filing their affidavits. Admittedly, when the complainant approached opposite party No.1 service centre, the opposite party No.1 issued Ex.A2 estimation. By the date of Ex.A2 estimation the warranty was in force. According to opposite party No.1 the warranty does not cover as the damage was resulting from liquid. In Ex.A1 it is noted “O/W”. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that O/W indicates “out of warranty”. Ex.A2 shows that for service charge and replacement of part, the opposite party No.1 estimated Rs.600/-. In Ex.A2 it is not noted that the damage to the mobile phone was resulting from liquid.


    As the complainant approached opposite party No.1 within the warranty period complaining some defect in the mobile phone, the opposite party No.1 ought to have issued job card mentioning the complaint made by the complainant. There is no explanation from opposite party No.1 why the job card was not issued when the complainant approached the service centre with some defect in the mobile phone. When the complainant got issued legal notice alleging that he has been facing the problem of mobile phone getting into switched off mode very frequently, both the opposite parties never tried to help him in rectifying the defect.


    The opposite party No.1 kept quiet. Only before this Forum, the opposite party No.1 came up with the version that the warranty does not cover to the mobile phone as the damage was resulting from liquid. There was an opportunity to opposite party No.1 to deny the plea of the complainant at the time of Ex.A2 and after receipt of legal notice. The plea of liquid damage now taken by the opposite party No.1, in our view, is an after thought. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant submitted that if there is problem with the board the defect cannot be rectified.


    The counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 did not deny the same. The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not also come forward to rectify the defect in the mobile phone. The plea of opposite party No.2 that after selling of the mobile phone they are not liable for any consequences cannot be accepted. The opposite parties failed to get the defect in the mobile phone rectified. Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the complainant.

    13. Point No.2:- In view of our finding on point No.1, the complainant is entitled for replacement of defective mobile phone with a new one. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused to him. There is absolutely no basis for claiming such huge amount towards compensation. In our view, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation.


    The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint. Hence, we find that the complainant is entitled for replacement of defective mobile phone W5801-Sony Ericsson, IMIE No.359285016155511 with a new one on the complainant surrendering the defective mobile phone and Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint. This point is accordingly answered.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Yelugoty Sreedhar,

    S/o. Y.Reddaiah,

    Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Sai Suja Apartments,

    D.No.9-66/23, New Maruthi Nagar,

    Tirupati. … Complainant



    And



    1. The Manager,

    Sony Ericssion Authorised Service Centre,

    D.No.137A, K.K.Layout,

    Tirupati.



    2. The Manager,

    GOLDEN Plaza,

    115, Central Park,

    Tirupati. … Opposite parties.







    ORDER



    This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one or in the alternative to refund the sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- along with interest from the date of purchase, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship and to pay the costs of the complaint to the complainant.

    2. The averments of the complaint in brief are :- The complainant purchased W5801-Sony Ericsson, IMIE No.359285016155511 mobile phone from opposite party No.2 retailer for Rs.12,000/- on 20.12.2007. The complainant purchased the mobile phone after being satisfied with the quality and warranty for such mobile phones and upto a period of two months since the purchase the complainant was very much satisfied with the working of the mobile phone. But, subsequently the mobile phone used to went into switched off mode frequently. The complainant had to switch the phone on as and when it went into switched off mode. The complainant had been reporting the same to opposite party No.1, the authorized service agent and opposite party No.2, the retailer, but they were giving evasive replies. On 13.11.2008 the complainant approached opposite party No.2, who directed him to approach opposite party No.1.


    The opposite party No.1 for the purpose of servicing the mobile phone received the same from the complainant and returned the same on 17.11.2008 by charging Rs.600/- citing some reasons of replacement of certain part in the mobile phone. The opposite party No.1 assured that the defect is rectified and there will not be any problem. Unfortunately, the problem with the mobile phone did not get rectified and the complainant has been facing the same problem. The complainant intimated the same to the opposite parties, but they gave reluctant answers. The complainant, who spent Rs.12,000/- for the purchase of mobile phone, is subjected to a lot of mental agony and hardship as the mobile phone falls short of quality and not suitable for use.


    The opposite parties are liable to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one as covered by the terms of the opposite parties warranty given on 20.12.2007. The opposite party No.1 is also liable to refund the amount of Rs.600/- taken by them under the guise of rectifying the defect. The opposite party No.2, being the retailer of defective mobile phone is bound to compensate the complainant for selling such defective product. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 21.11.2008 and opposite party No.2 gave reply disclaiming any liability.


    The opposite party No.1 neither replied nor complied. Since the period of 3 months from the date of sending legal notice, the complainant had been facing the problem with the mobile phone getting into switched off mode frequently, which caused him lot of hardship by way of loss of work as the nature of his work necessitates himself to be available on the phone to his prospective customers. Because of the defect in the mobile phone the complainant had to loose a suitable portion of his work and that has lead to lot of mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

    3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint. In the counter filed on behalf of opposite party No.1, while denying the allegations made in the complaint, it is inter alia stated that the warranty is valid only if the original proof of purchase issued by a Sony Ericsson authorized dealer and it will cover subject to terms and conditions of the warranty.


    The complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 17.11.2008 but not on 13.11.2008 and on that day, the opposite party No.1 clearly stated that the phone was dead due to liquid damage and it will not cover the warranty. The opposite party No.1 issued estimation slip on 17.11.2008 estimating the charges of Rs.600/- by mentioning O/W i.e. out of warranty. The complainant suppressed the same and approached this Forum to get wrongful gain. The complainant was not interested to get the mobile repaired. So, he went away without handing-over the mobile.


    The damage to the mobile arose due to negligence of the complainant and subsequently the complainant never approached opposite party No.1. Condition No.3 at page No.74 of warranty books reads “This warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to nominal tear and wear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the nominal and customary manner, in accordance with the Sony Ericsson instructions for use and maintenance of the product. Nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, software or hardware modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid”.


    The complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any damages by way of compensation and incidental costs. The complainant unnecessarily dragged the organization to the Court of law and thereby caused much damage to the reputation of the organization for which he is liable for both criminal and civil action. The complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs for non-joinder of necessary parties.

    4. In the objections filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, while denying the material allegations made in the complaint, it is inter alia stated that though the complainant purchased the mobile phone from opposite party No.2, subsequently the opposite party No.2 is not aware of the events that took place as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party No.2 is only a dealer in mobile phones. The warranty and other services that are to be attended to the mobile phone in case of defect have to be done by opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is no way connected to the service centre. It is entirely the province of opposite party No.1. Hence, the opposite party No.2 is not liable to any of the consequences after selling of the mobile phone. The complainant never contacted opposite party No.2 at any time.


    It was not brought to the notice of opposite party No.2 about the defects in the mobile prior to issue of notice. The opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service towards the complainant. If at all there is any warranty, the complainant can avail it from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is unnecessarily added as party and hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. The opposite party No.2 is not liable for any damages. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    5. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs. A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is bill dt:20.12.2007 for Rs.12,000/- issued by opposite party No.2 in the name of the complainant. Ex.A2 is estimation dt:17.11.2008 issued by opposite party No.1. Ex.A3 is office copy of legal notice dt:21.11.2008 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ex.A4 is reply notice got issued by opposite party No.2 to the advocate for complainant. Ex.A5 is warranty certificate of Sony Ericsson issued by opposite party No.2.

    6. In support of the case set up in the counter, the opposite party No.1 filed the booklet containing terms and conditions of the warranty, which is marked as Ex.B1. No documents are, however, filed on behalf of opposite party No.2.

    7. On behalf of the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel of both sides.

    8. On the basis of pleadings of both sides, the points that arise for determination are:-

    1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?

    3. To what result?

    9. Point No.1:- The brief facts of the case are:- The complainant on 20.12.2007 purchased W5801-Sony Ericsson mobile phone from opposite party No.2, who is the retail dealer of Sony Ericsson products for Rs.12,000/-. The opposite party No.2 issued Ex.A1 bill. The complainant approached opposite party No.1, the authorized service centre of Sony Ericsson complaining for rectifying the defect in the mobile phone.


    The opposite party No.1 issued Ex.A2 estimation dt:17.11.2008 estimating the cost of some part and service charge at Rs.600/-. The complainant got issued Ex.A3 legal notice to both the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the defective mobile with new one and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite party No.1 got issued Ex.A4 reply notice stating that he is only a retailer and he is not liable for any of the consequences after the selling of the mobile phone. The complainant filed the complaint on 26.05.2009.

    10. The complainant’s case is that since two months after the date of purchase of mobile phone he has been facing the problem of the mobile phone getting into switched off mode frequently, that though he reported the same to opposite parties they never tried to help him by rectifying the defect and that when he approached opposite party No.1, as directed by opposite party No.2, on 13.11.2008 for the purpose of servicing, the phone was returned to him on 17.11.2008 by charging Rs.600/-.


    His further case is that even subsequently he has been facing the same problem of mobile phone getting into switched off mode, that when he got issued legal notice to the opposite parties, the opposite party No.2 gave reply disclaiming any liability and opposite party No.1 neither replied nor complied to the notice and that opposite parties 1 and 2, who committed deficiency in service towards him, are liable to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one or in the alternative refund the sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship to him and to pay the costs of the complaint.

    11. The case of opposite party No.1 is that when the complainant approached the service centre on 17.11.2008, he was informed that the mobile phone was dead due to liquid damage, that as warranty does not cover damage resulting from liquid, they issued estimation slip estimating the charge for repair at Rs.600/- and that the complainant without handing-over the mobile for repair went away. The case of opposite party No.2 is that after purchasing the mobile phone the complainant never approached them, that they are only dealers in mobile phones and that in case of defect in the mobile phone, the opposite party No.1 has to rectify the same and that they are not liable for any consequences after the selling of the mobile phone.

    12. The complainant adduced evidence by filing his affidavit stating that he has been facing the problem of mobile phone getting into switched off mode frequently and though he has been reporting the same to opposite parties they never tried to get the defect rectified. The complainant also filed 3rd party affidavit of one R.Thulasiram Reddy. The said Thulasiram Reddy in his affidavit stated that he is a businessman running Cell and Watch shop at Hello Mobiles for the last 11 years, that when the complainant brought his Sony Ericsson mobile phone for repair, he informed him that he cannot attend to the mobile as he is not a authorized person to service such mobiles and that it is his opinion that the said mobile phone is getting switched off automatically because of some problem with the board.


    The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence by filing their affidavits. Admittedly, when the complainant approached opposite party No.1 service centre, the opposite party No.1 issued Ex.A2 estimation. By the date of Ex.A2 estimation the warranty was in force. According to opposite party No.1 the warranty does not cover as the damage was resulting from liquid. In Ex.A1 it is noted “O/W”. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that O/W indicates “out of warranty”. Ex.A2 shows that for service charge and replacement of part, the opposite party No.1 estimated Rs.600/-. In Ex.A2 it is not noted that the damage to the mobile phone was resulting from liquid.


    As the complainant approached opposite party No.1 within the warranty period complaining some defect in the mobile phone, the opposite party No.1 ought to have issued job card mentioning the complaint made by the complainant. There is no explanation from opposite party No.1 why the job card was not issued when the complainant approached the service centre with some defect in the mobile phone. When the complainant got issued legal notice alleging that he has been facing the problem of mobile phone getting into switched off mode very frequently, both the opposite parties never tried to help him in rectifying the defect.


    The opposite party No.1 kept quiet. Only before this Forum, the opposite party No.1 came up with the version that the warranty does not cover to the mobile phone as the damage was resulting from liquid. There was an opportunity to opposite party No.1 to deny the plea of the complainant at the time of Ex.A2 and after receipt of legal notice. The plea of liquid damage now taken by the opposite party No.1, in our view, is an after thought. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant submitted that if there is problem with the board the defect cannot be rectified.


    The counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 did not deny the same. The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not also come forward to rectify the defect in the mobile phone. The plea of opposite party No.2 that after selling of the mobile phone they are not liable for any consequences cannot be accepted. The opposite parties failed to get the defect in the mobile phone rectified. Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the complainant.

    13. Point No.2:- In view of our finding on point No.1, the complainant is entitled for replacement of defective mobile phone with a new one. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused to him. There is absolutely no basis for claiming such huge amount towards compensation. In our view, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation.


    The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint. Hence, we find that the complainant is entitled for replacement of defective mobile phone W5801-Sony Ericsson, IMIE No.359285016155511 with a new one on the complainant surrendering the defective mobile phone and Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint. This point is accordingly answered.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Pratibha Singh W/o Sh. Sukhpal Singh R/O Opp. Diet Building, Near Ranital, Nahan, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. presently working in Carrier Academy, Shamsherpur, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur.



    … Complainant.

    Versus



    1. Kunal Communication, Naya Bazaar, Nahan,

    Distt. Sirmour H.P. through its Authorized Signatory.

    (Authorized Dealer of Sony Ericcson).



    2. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication ( India)

    Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, dacha house, 18/17, WEA Karol

    Bagh, New Delhi-110005 through its Autorized

    Signatory.

    Opposite Parties.







    O R D E R:




    This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that she purchased a Sony Ericsson mobile hand set , from the OP No.1, vide bill bearing No.1794, on, 02.11.2008, for a sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. She further avers that the aforesaid hand set was having problem in the battery backup from the very beginning, hence, she brought the said defect to the notice of the OP No.1, who told her that the set had to be sent to OP No.2 for service and after service, by the OP No.2, when the set was put to use, it did not function.


    The complainant again sent the handset to the service station of the OP No.2, on, 20.04.2009, and when she received back the set, she found the mobile hand set badly mishandled and tampered with, hence did not function. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, and, accordingly, the relief to the extent, as detailed in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The notice of this complaint, was issued to the OPs, by way of registered letter, but the OPs did not prefer to put in appearance before this Forum, hence, the OPs were ordered to be proceeded against exparte, vide zimni order dated 10.09.2009.

    3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    4. The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, has placed reliance on Annexure-C-1, which proves the fact of her having purchased the mobile hand set, from the OP No.1, for a sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. Annexures C-2 & C-3 are the copies of service in relation to the mobile hand set issued by the authorized service centre, which proves the fact that the mobile hand set was having problem of display pro, & LCD, hinge and bonzer of the set was replaced, but, even then the defect persists. In addition to this, the complainant has also sworn an affidavit in support of the complaint.


    The allegation as contained in the complaint, has remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed, on behalf of the OPs, as, the OPs did not prefer to contest the complaint, despite valid service through registered postal, hence, the only conclusion, which sprouts from the aforesaid, is, that the OP No.1 had sold a defective mobile handset to the complainant, which started giving problem, from the very beginning, hence, the OPs by selling a defective mobile hand set to the complainant, has not only committed deficiency in service, but, has also indulged in an unfair trade practice.

    5. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OPs as under:-



    i) That the OPs shall refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant;



    ii) That the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- shall also, carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 16.07.2009, till actual payment is made;



    iii) That the OPs, shall also pay a sum of Rs.1000/-, as cost of litigation to the complainant;



    iv) That the OPs shall jointly and severally, comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



    6. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, and since the OPs have not contested the complaint, as such, office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the OPs through UPC for compliance forthwith. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
  • akshayghanghasakshayghanghas Junior Member
    edited October 2009
    : i am akshay from rohtak . my brother manish buy phone sonyericson w760i in march 2009 . i have problem in camera after few months . my phone camera do not work. i deposit my phone in service center at rohtak situated on chottu ram chowk on 17 september 2009. they said that the phone is coming in 20 days. after 20 days the phone is come with camera problem solved but there are another two problem come which are tight sliding and back button do not work. they said me that they solve these problem till the next day. i go to them on next day and they told me that the phone is again sent to company.today is about 45 days and they postponed the date when i go to them:D.

    imei no.354799026475409
    work order no.-SE309SSM10465
  • TanuTanu Senior Member
    edited November 2009
    B.R.Karthik Chandra,

    No.371, 1st ‘E’ Cross,

    6th Block, II Phase,

    Banashankari II Stage,

    Bangalore – 560 085.

    …. Complainant

    V/s



    01. The Proprietor,

    Big Complaint Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

    No.19, 80 feet Road, 3rd Stage,

    Banashankari, Srinivasanagar,

    Bangalore – 560 085.



    02. The Managing Director,

    Sony Ericson,

    Sofora International Ltd.,

    Complaint-52, 2nd Phase, Noida,

    Uttarpradesh.



    03. The Proprietor,

    Service Point,

    No.652, 11th Main,

    Jayanagar, 4th Block,

    Bangalore – 11.

    …. Opposite Parties





    -: ORDER:-



    The complainant has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the defective Sony Ericson Mobile Handset with a new one and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-, on the following grounds:-



    2. The complainant purchased a new W 580i Sony Ericson Mobile Handset for Rs.11,850/- on 09/12/2007 from Opposite Party No.1. The warranty card was issued by the Opposite Parties. He used the handset in accordance with the instructions contained in the user’s manual. In the last week of August-2008 the handset started getting problem of disturbance at the time of conversation. As per the instruction of Opposite Party No.1, the handset was handed over to Opposite Party No.3 on 01/09/2008. The handset was returned on 04/09/2008 informing that the boncer felex was replaced and the software was updated. On 05/09/2008 the handset had the same problems and therefore it was given back to the service center for repairs.

    The handset was returned on 07/09/2008 stating that it has been repaired and at that time no acknowledgment was given. Again on 12/09/2008 the handset was given to the service center for the same problem and it was returned on 22/09/2008 saying that the R.F.Board has been repaired. Since the handset had the same problem he contacted Opposite Party No.1. On inspection of the handset, Opposite Party No.1 also noticed the same problem. As per the request the handset was left with Opposite Party No.1 for the purpose of giving a quotation for repairs. Opposite Party No.1 returned the handset on 29/09/2008 stating that it would cost Rs.2800/- for repairs. On the same day, the handset was given to service center stating it was not repaired properly. After checking the handset, the service center informed that the display was changed and duplicate display was installed and therefore the handset cannot be repaired free of cost.

    Immediately the complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 asked about changing of the display and requested to repair the same. Since the Opposite Parties failed to take any action to repair or replace the handset, he issued legal notice dated 02/01/2009 calling upon the Opposite Party to replace the handset within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. But the Opposite Parties failed to take any action. Since the problem in the handset was within the warranty period, the Opposite Party is liable to repair or replace the handset. The act of the Opposite Parties in not doing so amounts to deficiency in service and the same caused mental tension. The complainant has been losing his money and time for securing replacement of the handset without any result. Hence, the complaint.



    3. In spite of service of notice, Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 have remained absent. Opposite Party No.3 has filed the version contending as under:-

    The complainant visited the service center on 01/09/2008 and again visited within a couple of week with the same complaint. They tried to convince the complainant that there is no problem with the testing sim and there may be problem with the network provider or in the sim card. But the complainant could not be convinced. He demanded for replacement of the handset. However, by replacing new RF Board (motherboard) with a new IMEI number, the handset was delivered back on 22/09/2008.

    The complainant visited the service center on 29/09/2008 with a new complaint of blank display. But they found that there were some damages and duplicate display was fixed. Therefore, they rejected service stating that as per the terms and conditions, the product cannot be serviced within the warranty. The complainant collected the handset without submitting it for service. As per the terms and conditions of warranty, the product should not be damaged with any liquid, physical damaged, tampered or serviced with any other service center. The handset was serviced with one of the unauthorized service center and was tampered by using duplicate spares. The new complaint can be serviced as out of warranty. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3.

    4. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit. Except filing the version Opposite Party No.3 has not adduced any evidence. We have heard the arguments on both side.



    5. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?



    2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

    6. Our findings are:-

    Point No.(1) : In the Affirmative

    As against O.P. No.1

    Point No.(2) : As per final order,

    for the following:-

    -:REASONS:-

    7. The fact that the complainant purchased a Mobile Handset on 09/12/2007 from Opposite Party No.1 is evident from the cash bill dated 09/12/2007 issued by Opposite Party No.1. From the copy of the delivery challan dated 04/09/2008 it is seen that Opposite Party No.3 had effected repairs to the handset by replacing the boncer felex and updating the software. The job works sheet dated 22/09/2008 issued by Opposite Party No.1 makes it clear that on that day the complainant had handed over the Mobile handset to Opposite Party No.1 complaining disturbance in out going and incoming calls and display is shaking.

    It is also endorsed on this job works sheet that the Mobile handset is not repaired and the same was handed over to the complainant. It is also the contention of the complainant that after Opposite Party No.3 returned the Mobile Handset on 22/09/2008 replacing the RF board, the same problems were noticed in the Handset and therefore it was handed over to Opposite Party No.1. It is contended that on 29/09/2008 Opposite Party No.1 returned the Handset stating that it would cost around Rs.2,800/- for repairs and on the same day he handed over the handset to Opposite Party No.3 stating that the handset is not properly repaired and thereupon Opposite Party No.3 checked the handset and returned back stating that the duplicate display has been installed. This fact is evident from the delivery challan dated 29/09/2008 issued by Opposite Party No.3.

    This fact remains that the handset was delivered to Opposite Party No.1 on 22/09/2008 for repairs and Opposite Party No.1 returned the handset on 29/09/2008, giving estimation for repairs and on the same day the complainant handed over the handset to Opposite Party No.3 for repairs who on inspection found that the display has been replaced with duplicate. As such the duplicate display was installed in the handset between 22/09/2008 and 29/09/2008 when the handset was in the possession of Opposite Party No.1. Therefore it implied that it is Opposite Party No.1 who changed the original display and installed a duplicate display. Since Opposite Party No.1 has remained absent, this inference has remained un-rebutted. According to Opposite Party No.3 the repairs with regard to the installation of duplicate display was by an unauthorized service center namely Opposite Party No.1. If Opposite Party No.1 was not the authorized service center for the Mobile handset manufactured by Sony Ericson, it had no authority to effect repairs to the handset and to install a duplicate display.

    For this unauthorized act, Opposite Party No.1 becomes liable to replace the handset with a new handset of the same model. Since Opposite Party No.3 effected repairs on two occasions by replacing certain parts and refused service on 29/09/2008 on account installation of duplicate display by an unauthorized service center, no liability for replacement of the handset can be fixed either on Opposite Party No.2 or Opposite Party No.3. Therefore, we hold that the act of Opposite Party No.1 in installing duplicate display amounts not only to deficiency in service but also to unfair trade practice. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 alone is liable to replace the handset with a new one. In the result, we pass the following:-



    -:ORDER:-



    1. The complaint is ALLOWED against Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed against Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3.

    2. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to replace the handset purchased by the complainant with a new defect free handset of the same model and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-. (Rs.Two Thousand only)

    3. Compliance of this order shall be made within 08 (eight) weeks from the date of communication.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited November 2009
    Pushparaj, 14/35-A,Anna Nagar,SRSI Road,

    Karamadai, Mettupalayam TK, Coimbatore- --- Complainant

    Vs.

    1. M/s. Sony Ericssion Mobile Communications (I)(P) Ltd.,

    rep.by M.D., 4th floor, Dakha House,

    New Delhi 110 005

    2. M/s.Universal Telecommunications (I)Pvt.Ltd.

    rep.by its Branch Manager,100 feet road,

    Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-12.

    3. M/s.Universal Telecommunications (I)Pvt.Ltd.

    rep.by its Regional Manager,

    29, Royapettah High Road,Chennai-14. -- Opposite Parties



    This case coming on for final hearing before us on 21.10.09 in the presence of Thiru M.Richard, Advocate for complainant and of M/s.A.Vijayakumar, P.Saravanan and R.Gobi, Advocates for opposite parties 2 and 3 and the 1st opposite party remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

    ORDER

    Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace jointly severally the above defective handset by supplying a new one, to pay Rs.50,000/0 as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5000 towards costs.

    The averments in the complaint are as follows:

    1. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of Sony Ericssion Mobile Handsets. The 2nd opposite party is the dealer in sales of the above mobiles. The complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party for purchase of a mobile handset. The complainant was convinced by the representations/assurances made by the sales manager of the 2nd opposite party with respect to the functions of the handset and its after-service facilities, purchased the W 910-I model handset from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.15,300 under invoice dt.6.7.08. The handset was working properly only for 5 to 6 months without any problems. Sometime later, the handset had failed to function. Whenever the complainant had started charging the handset it automatically got switched off and became dead the result of which the handset could not be charged/used. Hence the complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party for redressal of the above complaint in his handset. The 2nd opposite party had informed the complainant that they are only the dealers in sale of mobile handsets and the defects could be rectified only in the service centres. The 2nd opposite party had also advised the complainant to approach the service centres situated at R.S.Puram/Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore town.

    2. The complainant approached the Sony Ericssion Service centre at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore wherein he was informed after inspection that the particular spare part required for rectifying the mistake was not available with them. They hence advised the complainant to approach for doing the needful the other service centre at Dr.Nanjappa road, Coimbatore town. Thus the handset was subsequently placed before the service centre at Dr.Nanjappa road on 27.2.09. The complainant’s complaint was registered on 27.2.09 and the handset was received for carrying out repairs. Later it was informed that they could not rectify the defect and that the problem would be referred to the Regional office ie. the 3rd opposite party for doing the needful. Thus the complainant was advised to wait for a week’s time. Later on, the handset was returned to the complainant stating that the problem was solved. The very next day, when the complainant had started charging the handset it again got switched off and became dead. The complainant was quite shocked and surprised to see the recurring defect in the handset. Hence the complainant had again approached the service was still persisting. The service centre had again registered the complaint and received back the handset for getting the repairs done. However to his shock and surprise, the handset which was retained for the 2nd time for almost 12 days finally returned to the complainant with note in the delivery chalan that “after replacing and observing the same problem persisting Therefore returning without service”. The complainant was informed that the handset could not be repaired on account of manufactural defect and the only possible remedy is to return the handset to the company and get a new one. Thus the complainant was advised to approach the 1st opposite party for replacement.

    3. The complainant was constrained to cause legal notice dt.20.5.09 calling upon all the opposite parties to replace jointly/severally the above defective handset by supplying a new one to the complainant. All the opposite parties received the legal notice. However they neither replied for the notice nor complied with the demand made therein. Thus all the three opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant in terms of money for the mental agony and business loss suffered by him. Hence this complaint.

    The averments in the counter of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are as follows:

    4. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties is only the retailer of mobile phone and not the manufacturer. The 2nd opposite party admits that it sold the Sony Ericssion Mobile phone model W 920-I on 6.7.08 to the complainant for a sum of Rs.15,300 with good condition the same was accepted by the complainant along with bill and warranty issued by the manufacturer namely the Sony Ericssion company. The mobile phone will be replaced by the Sony Ericssion company only if there is a manufacturing defect and manufacturing defects will have to be scrutinized by the service engineer. If they identify it is a manufacturing defect the same will be replaced. The complainant had not handed over mobile phone to the authorized service centre to rectify it.

    5. If the customers report about the defect of the mobile and if they request for replacement from the manufacturing company the same will be taken and it will be forwarded to the concerned manufacturing company. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties not liable to make any compensation or it is not authorized to replace the mobile phone.

    6. The complainant and opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A7 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.



    The point for consideration is

    Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?





    ISSUE 1

    7. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of Sony Ericssion Mobile Handsets. The 2nd opposite party is the dealer and the 3rd opposite party is the Regional office at Chennai are all admitted. The purchase of Sony Ericssion Mobile Model W 920-1 by the complainant on 6.7.08 and the warranty issued by the manufacturer are also admitted. The contention of the opposite parties is that the mobile phone will be replaced by the Sony Ericssion company only if there is a manufacturing defect and that defect will have to be scrutinized by the service engineers. If they identify then only the same will be replaced, but in the present case the complainant has not handed over the mobile phone to the authorized service centre for rectification.

    8. As per the advice of the 2nd opposite party the complainant approached the service centre at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore and as per their advice the handset was finally handed over to the service centre at Dr.Nanjappa Road on 27.2.09. The handset was returned to the complainant after rectification, the very next day the same problem continued and handset was once again given to the service centre at Dr.Nanjappa Road and after 10 days the same was returned with a note “after replacing and observing the same problem persisting Therefore returning without service”. This delivery challan is marked as Ex.A2. Hence the complainant has proved that the handset is a defective one and there is a manufacturing defect.

    9. The handset was purchased on 6.7.08 the warranty period expires on 5.7.09the present complaint was registered by the complainant on 27.2.09witht he 1st opposite party well within the warranty period.

    10. The 1st opposite party being the manufacturer is responsible to set right the defect through its service centre and in case of manufacturing defect to replace the same by supplying a new handset. From Ex.A2 the delivery challan issued by the service centre of the 1st opposite party it is evident that the mistake could not be rectify hence the 1st opposite party is bound to take a defective handset sold and give a new one. Hence all the opposite parties are equally responsible for the transaction made by the 2nd opposite party. They jointly and severally liable for the replacement of the handset as well as for other claim.

    11. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties would contend that the handset was not handed over to the authorized service centre. But this is not correct. As directed by the 2nd opposite party the complainant approached the service centre at R.S.Puram, but they failed to carry out the repair. As a seller the 2nd opposite party is duty bound to attend the grievance of the consumers. The consumers cannot directly approach the manufacturer without the help of seller. Even after coming to know that the handset is a defective one the 2nd opposite party has not so far taken any steps for replacement. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties cannot disown their responsibility. For the act of deficient service rendered by the 2nd opposite party the other opposite parties No.1 and 3 are also liable to compensate the loss. Hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the handset sold by supplying a new one and also liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

    12. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to replace jointly severally the above defective handset by supplying a new one, to pay jointly severally to the complainant a sum of Rs..20,000 as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of Rs.1000/-to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  • edited November 2009
    Sony Ericsson
    Subject : Unsatisfied with the repair done by Sony Ericsson Service Centre
    I Niteshwar Sood bought a phone W350i on 25-08-2008. From the purchasing date I was facing hardware problem many times which are as follows:
    Model : Sony Ericsson W350i
    IMEI : 355865023550012
    Purchase Date: 25-08-2008
    1st complaint—Phone is Dead 15-11-2008, 3:07 pm
    Service centre: Salora International Ltd. Chandigarh, Sec-34
    Job Sheet No.—SES08CHD23346
    Delivery Date: 29-11-2008, With 3 months extended warranty (due to new mother board)
    With new IMEI—354388028768605
    2nd Complaint—System Connector Problem 22-08-2009
    Service centre : RT Chandigarh, SCO 23, Sec-18D
    Job Sheet No. – SE309RTC12585
    New job Sheet prepared without any notification on 01-09-2009, 10:38am
    Job Sheet No. SE309RTC12981
    Delivery date : 19-09-2009, 4:18pm
    With New IMEI : 354173034772563 {With 3 months extended warranty (due to new mother board)}
    After repairing Problem arise after few days:
    1. Flip does not work
    2. Keys 4,7,8 does not work
    3. Phone’s body was not closed properly. (one screw was missing)
    4. Phone dead on 16-10-2009
    New Complaint—Phone Dead 24-10-2009
    Service centre : RT Chandigarh, SCO 23, Sec-18D
    Job Sheet No. : SE309RTC15079
    I am fed up with this phone due to its improper functioning. Being a student I don’t have enough time and money to repair this phone. As it is on warranty period but I have spend a lot of money to repair the phone (Bus fare). Every week they call me to take my phone back, but when I reached there, they always says Sorry. I am not satisfied and not happy on buying this product. Also service provided by service centre makes me frustrated. I have also mail complaints on Sony Ericsson site. On toll free number there is also a complaint launch by me whose complaint ID is 85084618. But not any proper action taken by anyone. I think its all in vain. I also mail to sony ericsson, but always get one reply by them, that your complaint is forwrded, but still no action is taken by them. Still today 4-11-2009, i does not get my phoneback. As this set is repaired by them again and again and i cant feel that again they provide me satisfactiry service. M fed up of this cellphone and service. Can someone help me…………….

    Niteshwar Sood
    Phone No. 09417864834 (P.P.)
    Email : nsood719@gmail.com
  • mohit9988mohit9988 Junior Member
    edited November 2009
    hiii
    m mohit from chandigarh..


    i purchased a sony ericsson k530i handset ON 10-MAY-2009 from mobile store,(Panchkula,Haryana)..but in the end of septemper 2009 one end of my ear phone kit stopped working..
    so on 1st of october 2009(1:31PM) i went to sony ericsson service centre in chandigarh(S.C.O-23,sec18,Chandigarh.)...they told me that earphone will be available after 10 days ...
    so i contacted them after 10 days....on that day ...they agian told me to come on next week(after 7 days)...
    as usual i contacted them via phone after 7days...but i was stunned by their poor service this time again...because they again told me the same thing..."next week you will surely get the earphone" ...but that next has not come yet...as it is 6 nov 2009....and they are still saying the same thing "ear phone kit will come next week surely.."


    i was toatly fed up by service centre of chandigarh ......so i dialed sony ericsson customer care no....they listen the whole matter but they just ended the conversation by giving a request no..& requesting to wait for next 48 hrs for next status...

    one more thing today i tried to track the status of my workorder online on a site mentioned on my workorder forum...with my workorder no-SE309RTC14203...it showed that your product is deliverd on 1-oct-2009...that was the date when i submitted my ear phone kit..its means service centre has not given me ear phone kit even after having stock...

    details about my ear phone kit & phone are....
    phone model-k530i(purchased from mobile store...)
    workorder no-SE309RTC14203
    PROUCT DETAILS-HPM-61


    some body please help me.....
  • asmashahasmashah Junior Member
    edited November 2009
    i purchased a sony ericsson F305 phone. IMEI NUMBER 35216203-036265-3 FROM SUN TELESERVICES . K 18 lajpat nagar 2.

    The handset developed problems after a few months so i submitted the phone to repair at sony ericsson workshop in lajpat nagar. Phone number 011-46502595. The phone was submitted on 22/august/2009 but the company registers it as submittd on 3rd september 2009 . I havent yet got my phone back and have contacted them several times. They always give me the excuse that parts required to repair are pending . How can that be? that an authorised service centre does not have the parts of a phone manufactured by the same company.

    Please help!!!!!!!!!!!! i have suffered a lot of inconveinince and they have not been helping despite several calls been made to them. Evry week they tell me that the phone will be done by next week but nothing has happened so far.

    Kindly help me with the matter. I dont know what to do. The phone was brought for 8100.
  • pkr2170pkr2170 Junior Member
    edited February 2010
    Dear Sir

    I have purchased one SonyEricsson XPeria X1 on 28-03-2009 for a whooping 32000/-.

    The handset went dead on 17-01-2010 and subsequently I submitted it in there service center on 18-01-2010.

    It had been a horrible nightmare starting then.

    I have been following them like fools but no one is ready to help me.

    I have requested and written to everyone in SonyEricsson. The people include

    Mr Sanjeev Saxena (Head North India)
    Mr Rajesh Sahni (Country Head Service)
    Ms Shalini Sharma (Escalations Head)
    Mr Anil Sethi (President Sonyericsson)

    And finally

    Mr Bert Nordberg (President SonyEricsson Global situated in London)

    but no one is ready to help me.

    I now want a FULL REPLACEMENT With any model of Same value as I have lost faith in this model.

    Please help me.

    Thanks

    Pankaj
  • sudakaransudakaran Junior Member
    edited February 2010
    Dear sir,

    Im resident of Madurai, I have purchased sony ericsson w395 on 17.01.2010(sunday) thru Mobile store - north veli street branch madurai. we have purchased the same around 7p.m, in the same night itself we found some greenish shade while capturing picture thru camera, and the same complaint was registered with the dealer, he ask me to bring the set, but since im working in marketing field im suppose to travel on that day, so i have left the same in my house itself as instructed my family member not to use the set. After i came back from my tour i have given that handset to mobile store on 25.01.2010 along with purchase bill and everything. within couple of days i got call from mobile store stating that my handset has been rectified so they ask me come and collect the set, but the next day when i went there they told me that, they have faced the same problem again in the set. so once again they have given the same to the service centre. But till date there is no response from that store as well as from customer service, they are hiding their face while im crossing them. Im totally fed up sir. Finally they are telling that sony ericsson can be replaced only if we use less than 4 minutes. But they have not reveal the same whild we are puchasing the set.

    Please let me know sir what shall i do.

    Product : sony ericsson Model : w395 date of purchase : 17.01.2010 Dealer : Mobile Store, North veli street, madurai.
    IMEI No.357906039847691. Problem : Camera and Hanging problem.

    Please let me know how can i proceed sir.

    Many thanks
    Sudakaran
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Consumer Complaint No


    801 of 2009

    Date of Institution


    4.06.09

    Date of Decision


    9.12.09

    Pawan Nanda, s/o Sh.K.K.Nanda, r/o#3365, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh

    …..Complainant

    V E R S U S

    1]Salora International Limited, D-13/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020 through Managing Director and others.

    2]Salora International Limited, SCO 327, 2nd Floor, Sector 40 D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

    3]Standard Teletronics,SCO No.1049, Sector 22B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.



    ……Opposite Parties



    CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

    SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

    DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER



    Argued by: Sh. Hitender Kansal, Adv.proxy for Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Adv. for complainant.

    OPs ex-parte.



    PER DR. (MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

    Succinctly put, the complainant on 26.06.08 purchased one Sony Ericson Mobile Set W580i bearing IME No.35243002-237572-2 for Rs.10,100/- from OP-3, manufactured by OP-1. At the time of purchase it was told to the complainant that the mobile set carries a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. The complainant stated that from the day one only, the mobile set started giving minor problem and in the month of February, 09, the set developed major defects. The complainant immediately went to OP-3 for the rectification of the said defect, however OP-3 directed the complainant to go to OP-2(authorized workshop) for defect rectification. The complainant visited OP-2 and was told that the defect would be rectified as the set was within warranty. On 16.02.09, the complainant brought the mobile set after defect rectification but shortly he again started facing the same problem as was faced earlier. The complainant again visited OP-2 and handed over the defective mobile set for rectification vide tag dt.13.03.09 and the complainant was assured to collect the set in the first week of April,09. The complainant received a call on 1.04.09 that the defect of the set is rectified and the same may be collected but third time also the complainant faced the same defect in the mobile set as was faced earlier by him. The complainant again visited the office of OP-2 but OP-2 did not issue the service tag to get the set repaired and now there is no positive response from the OPs to get the mobile set repaired/replaced. The set is still not working and lying with the complainant without its use. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed that the present complaint may kindly be allowed and OPs be directed to refund the amount of the set along with costs of litigation and compensation towards harassment caused to the complainant.

    2. Notice was served to the OPs for written reply and evidence. None appeared on behalf of OPs, accordingly OPs proceeded against ex-parte.

    3. The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

    4. We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record.

    5. Annexure C-1 is the detailed invoice vide which the complainant on 26.06.08, purchased one Sony Ericson Mobile Set W580i bearing IME No.35243002-237572-2 for Rs.10,100/- from OP-3(manufactured by OP-1). According to the complainant the mobile handset did not work well after it was purchased. The case of the complainant brought on record annexure C-2 and C-3, the job sheet in the month of Feb, 09, the mobile set in question developed major defects and the complainant could not read the text or pictures on the display and even the key pad was not working.

    6. The act and conduct of OP-3 in not honouring the warranty while sale of the above said mobile and consequently not repairing the defective mobile set during the warranty period without any cost, amounts to deficiency in service. In this manner it is evidently clear that OP-2 is carrying out



    service in a negligent and deficient manner, thereby causing

    harassment to the consumers, secondly the none-repairing of the defective mobile set during the warranty period surely amounts to deficiency in service because warranty is always given directly by the manufacturing company i.e OP-1. It is also liable to get the same repaired in case of any default within the specified period. In the instant case since, the mobile set was purchased by the complainant on 26.06.08and it became defective just after few months of its purchase and its defect was not rectified by OP-2 during the warranty, which we feel OP-2 is duty bound to repair that without any charges.

    7. It appears that is why the OP intentionally did not appear after service and was proceeded against exparte, which shows that it has no defense to make against the complaint made by the complainant.

    8. So, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case placed before us, we accept the complaint. Accordingly, we direct OPs to rectify the defect of the mobile set and to return the same to the complainant by making it fully functional and to the satisfaction of the complainant, after necessary repairs, without any charges within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In the event the said mobile set in question seems to be non-functional/non-operational or defective in any way or it is not possible to repair it. OPs shall replace it with the new mobile set of the same configuration within the aforesaid given period. We award costs of litigation of Rs.550/-, which shall be paid by the OPs within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @8% till its actual payment to the complainant. Accordingly the complaint stands allowed in the aforesaid manner.

    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Consumer Complaint No

    810 of 2009

    Date of Institution

    05.06.2009

    Date of Decision
    20.01.2010

    Gaurav Kumar s/o Sh.Rameshwar Lal r/o V.P.O. Chamkaur Sahib, Distt.-Ropar, Punjab

    …..Complainant

    V E R S U S

    1] Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., Building No.9A, 10th Floor, DLF Cybercity, Sector 25-A, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana

    2] N.K.Electronics, Shop No.A-1, Mandir Market, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana

    3] B.M. Services, Shop No.6, Basement Pearl Palace, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

    4] Salora Intl. Ltd., S.C.O. 327, 2nd Floor, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh



    ……Opposite Parties



    CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

    DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER



    Argued by: Sh. Shabir Singh, Adv. for complainant.

    OPs exparte.



    PER DR. (MRS.) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

    Succinctly put, the complainant on 08.03.08 purchased a Sony Ericsson mobile hand set model W580i EMI no.352430022506862 for Rs.10,000/- from retailer dealer (OP-2). On 09.03.08, he noticed some defect in the answer key of the said set. On 13.03.08, he approached the customer care centre and handed over the mobile hand set against complaint no. SES08CHD13640 dated 13.03.08. The said mobile set was replaced with a new one on 31.03.08. After few months, the replaced new hand set also developed the same defect as was with earlier one. The complainant again visited B.M. Services customer care centre (OP-3) and deposited the defective mobile hand set to them for repair. After repeated requests, on 05.01.09 the hand set was handed over to him after repair, in which the keypad and some other parts were replaced. That after some days the hand set again developed defect with its speaker and Bluetooth. On 2.02.09, he again deposited the defective mobile set with Salora International Ltd., Chandigarh (OP-4) for its repair, which was returned to him on 27.02.09 after repairs. The defect again developed in the repaired hand set and again he deposited the same to OP-4 on 10.03.09. After that the complainant rang up OP-4 many times to know about the status of repairs of the said hand set but every time he failed due to the delaying tactics of the OPs. The OPs never gave any convincing reply to him. After that, the complainant served a legal notice to OP No. 1, 2 and 3 but till date he had not received any reply regarding the repair of his mobile hand set. As the business of the complainant suffered a lot due to the defective mobile hand set, he purchased a new mobile phone for Rs.6,700/-. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused him a lot of harassment, mental agony and tension.

    2] Notice was served to the OPs. None appeared on behalf of the OPs. Accordingly the OPs were proceeded ex-parte.

    3] The complainant led evidence in support of his/her contentions.

    4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.



    5] Annexure C-1 is the Retail Invoice vide which the complainant purchased the mobile in question after making cash payment of Rs.10,000/- on 8.3.2008. According to the complainant, the mobile set did not work well and it developed certain defects from the very next day of its purchase, which was then taken to Service Centre of OP Company with its EMI No.352430022506862. The complainant again noticed that its answer key was not functioning properly giving problems while attending incoming calls. On 31.3.2008 the Customer Care Centre of said mobile handset company replaced the defective mobile handset with a new one. However, the new/replaced mobile hand set also started giving the same problems with regard to answer key resulting into non-response/late response to the incoming calls. Again the complainant had to visit the Service Centre of OPs for 6 times to get the new/replaced mobile handset repaired. Annexure C-2 to C-7 are the copies of the Job Sheets, but the OP Service Centre could not rectify the defects in the mobile set. Thereafter reminder (Ann.C-8) was also sent to the OPs but to no effect. The contention of the complainant is that OPs have been trying to rectify the defects in the mobile set for the last 5 months but could not succeed and the mobile set was lying with OP No.4 since 10th March, 2009 and till date it has neither been repaired nor returned to the complainant.



    6] The notice of complaint was sent to the OPs but they did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte. The non-appearance of the OPs inspite of due service of notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against claim made by the complainant in the present complaint.



    7] From the above facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has sufficiently proved his case by way of leading documentary evidence on record. In these set of circumstances, we hold that the OPs were deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant due to which the complainant had to suffer great mental tension and physical harassment. We also hold that the act of the OPs in not returning the defective mobile set which was deposited by the complainant with OP No.4 after carrying out necessary repairs, fully proves that the said mobile handset is non-repairable. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the OPs to refund the price amount of the mobile set to the complainant i.e. Rs.10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.550/-. We order accordingly. The OPs are directed to make the entire payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay penal interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum since the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 5.6.2009 till the payment is actually made to the complainant. The complaint stands allowed in above terms.

    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Complaint Case No :1147 of 2009

    Date of Institution : 12.08.2009

    Date of Decision : 06.01.2010

    Ashwani Ananad, aged 52 years, son of Sh.B.D.Anand, resident of H.No.55, Sector 7, Panchkula.

    ….…Complainant

    V E R S U S

    1] M/s Sony India (P) Ltd., (Sony Ericsson), SCO No.162-163, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

    2] Essar Telecom Retail Ltd., SCO No.101, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.
    3] The Salora International Ltd., SCO No.237, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

    .…..Opposite Parties

    CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

    DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

    Argued by: Sh.R.K.Bamal, Adv. for complainant.

    Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Adv. for OP No.2.

    OP No.1 and OP No.3 exparte.

    PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

    Concisely put, the complainant purchased one mobile hand set of Sony Ericssion, Model P-IL from OP NO.2 on 4.6.2008 for Rs.16,729/- vide Ann.P-1. The said handset started giving problem from the very beginning of its purchase with regard to software hanging; message problem; show error-11 & menu/application slow etc. and therefore, it was deposited with OP No.3, the authorized service centre, for necessary repairs on 11.8.2008, who returned it on 11.11.2008 with an assurance that it would not give any problem. However, the said defects reoccurred in the mobile set even after repairs, as such it was again taken to OP No.3 on 20.2.2009, who returned it on 21.2.2009 with an assurance that it would not give any problem and in case it would give any such problem, the handset would be replaced with new one or its price amount would be refunded. It is averred that the said mobile set was still not functioning properly and therefore, it was again deposited with OP No.3 on 21.2.2009 in the evening and it was kept by OP No.3 upto 25.2.2009 for repair but the defect could not be removed being manufacturing defect. Thereafter the set was again deposited with OP No.3 on 4.3.2009 and then on 10.3.2009 for repairs and since then it was lying with OP No.3. It is averred that the official of OP No.3 has told that they are unable to repair/remove the defect in the mobile set being manufacturing defects. Then complainant visited the OPs to either replace his mobile handset with new one or refund its price amount, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint alleging the above acts of OPs as gross deficiency in service, which caused the complainant great mental & physical harassment and financial loss.

    2] Notice was served to the OPs. The Representative of OP-1 appeared and sought time to file reply and evidence. After that none appeared on behalf of OP-1. Hence OP-1 suffered exparte. However, reply & evidence was filed by OP No.2. None appeared on behalf of OP-3, accordingly it was also proceeded exparte.

    3] OP No.2 filed reply and admitted the sale of mobile set in question. It is denied that the OP No.2 ever retained the mobile handset in question for repairs or replacement. It is stated that they are merely retailers and had nothing to do with repair of the handset. It is also denied that the handset in question was defective or suffered from any manufacturing defect. It is further stated that answering OP has nothing to do with the repair or replacement of the mobile in question and the same could be dealt with only by OP NO.1 Manufacturer i.e. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. or OP No.3-Authorised Service Centre of OP Company. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that complaint qua OP No.2 be dismissed.

    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] It is the contention of the complainant that he purchased a mobile handset of Sony Ericson, model P-IL, from OP-2 dated 4.06.08 for a sum of Rs.16,729/- which was manufactured by OP-1. Annexure C-1 shows that the above said mobile is under warranty for the period of one year i.e. from 4.06.08 to 3.06.09. Annexure P-2 to P-7 show that the above said mobile started giving problem during the period of warranty and the complainant took the mobile for necessary repairs on 4.06.08, 11.08.08, 20.02.09, 21.02.09, 4.03.09, 9.03.09 and 10.03.09. It is the contention of the complainant that he deposited the mobile for repair last on 10.03.09 and the same is lying with OP-3. The officials of the OP-3 stated that they are unable to repair the defect of the said mobile. As OPs did not listen to the grievances of the complainant, he served a legal notice dated 9.04.09 but OPs did not bother to reply.

    7] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has sufficiently proved his case by way of documentary evidence placed on record. Therefore in these circumstances, we accept the complaint and hold the OPs deficient in rendering service to the complainant. It is the responsibility of the OP-2 and OP-3 to get the said mobile set repaired at their own expenses and deliver it to the complainant in proper functioning condition, which in the present case has not been done. There is thus, deficiency on the part of the OPs in not repairing the mobile hand set or in alternative not replacing it with the new set within the warranty period.

    8] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving that there was deficiency in service rendered by the OPs. The complaint therefore succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP-3 is directed to rectify the defect in the said set and deliver it to the complainant in proper functioning condition to his satisfaction without charging anything. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.1100/- towards costs of litigation within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order failing which OPs would be liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest @9% p.a., since the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.08.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. It is also made clear to the OP-1 and OP-2 that in case the said mobile in question seems to be non repairable the same should be replaced with a new one of the same configuration and model and supply it to the complainant within the above stipulated period of 30 days.

    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    CC.No:128/2009

    BETWEEN:

    Vemuri Ramachandra Moorthy,

    S/o Radha Krishna Muthy,

    Hindu, aged about 38 years,

    Poojari, R/o Ammanabrolu (v), ... Complainant.

    Vs.

    Sha China Plaza, represented by

    Its Proprietor, Trunk Road, Ongole. …Opposite party.

    COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: SRI. B. ADI BABU,

    ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

    COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: EX-PARTE.

    This complaint is coming on 11.01.2010 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this Forum delivered the following:

    ORDER:

    1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party.


    2. The case of the complainant is that on 01.04.2009 he purchased Sony Ericsson cell phone for the Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party and on 02.04.2009 when he was charging the cell phone with the charger supplied by the opposite party the cell phone was burst with huge sound. The opposite party sold duplicate cell phone assembled by him and not manufactured by Sony Ericsson Company and thereby cheated him. Inspite of repeated demands the opposite party fail to refund the amount. Hence, he filed the complaint.



    3. The opposite parties did not choose to appear before the forum and contest the matter and remained ex-parte.



    4. The attitude of the opposite party shows that the opposite party has nothing to say in his defence in the matter. Considering averments in the complaint and the affidavit filed by the complainant I am of the opinion that the complainant proved his case and the opposite party is liable to refund the amount together with interest to the complainant.



    5. In the result, petition is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the cell phone together with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till realization to the complainant. It is further ordered that the opposite party shall pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant along with the cost of the cell phone.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    C.C.No.217 OF 2009.
    Date of filing: 30.10.2009.
    Between :

    P. Ratna Prasad, S/o.Ramchandra Rao, resident of JE 453, VTPS Colony, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada.

    ….. Complainant.

    And

    1. Sony Ericsson, represented by its Manager, Salora International Limited, # 3-13/4, KAHLA Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110 020.

    2. BIG C, represented by its Showroom Manager, Multi Brand Mobile Show Room, Masjeed Street, Arundalpet, Vijayawada – 520 002.

    3. Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Communications, represented by its Authorised Person, # 28-23-21, Sai Sadan, Ground Floor, Moulana Street, Arundelpet, Vijayawada – 520 002.

    ….. Opposite Parties.
    This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 07.01.2010, in the presence of Sri G.Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3 called absent and opposite party No.2 in person and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum doth order the following:


    ORDER

    This complaint is under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    1. The concise averments of the complaint are as follows:

    That the complainant purchased a mobile set (Sony Ericsson) mobile No.W580 with IME No.357143012107659 from the opposite party No.2 for valid consideration of Rs.13,500/- on 2.10.2007. Thereafter the mobile gave trouble (display) there upon he approached the 2nd opposite party who in turn suggested to approach 3rd opposite party accordingly the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party received hand set on 4.6.2008 and asked the complainant to come after two days accordingly the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party yet, the 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defect, on the other hand behaved indifferently and thereby the complainant suffered mental agony and as the 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defect, so the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 17.12.2008, though received opposite parties 1 and 2 but failed reply and comply, but third (3rd) opposite party replied with false and untenable allegations. Hence the complaint.



    2. The 2nd opposite party alone filed version wherein he denied the allegations of the complaint in general and admitted the sale of Sony Ericsson mobile set but contended that the complainant never approached this opposite party and that he is only a seller and that he is nothing to do with the defects of the mobile and it is the 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service center to rectify the defects and if the mobile is having other defects it is for the manufacturer to answer and thereby there is no any deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and that this opposite party has no power to replace the mobile set with new one and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.



    3. The opposite parties 1 and 3 did not contest the matter.



    4. On behalf of the complainant the complainant himself filed an affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A7. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party Sri .N.Rajesh filed an affidavit but no documents are marked.



    5. Heard on either side.



    6. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:

    i) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

    ii) Whether the mobile set purchased by the complainant is having patent defect?

    iii) To what relief the complainant is entitled?



    7. Point Nos.1 and 2: As could be seen from the material on hand the complainant purchased Sony Ericsson mobile from the 2nd opposite party on 2.10.2007 vide Exhibit A1 and that the warranty certificate is Exhibit A2. The material further discloses that the mobile gave trouble within warranty period, so he approached the 2nd opposite party who in turn advised to approach the 3rd opposite party, who in turn received the mobile and gave job card vide Exhibit A3 and Exhibit A4 clearly discloses that the mobile is having warranty even for battery. Thereafter the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party who returned the mobile stating that he rectified the defects but in fact the 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defects. Ofcourse the learned counsel for the complainant and the complainant contended that the 3rd opposite party behaved indifferently etc., etc., may be, may not be but yet that is not the criteria in this complaint, but it has to be seen whether the mobile is having patent defect or latent defect, if so the 3rd opposite party rectified the same or not, as it is by going through the entire record on hand it is clear that the mobile is having patent defect, otherwise the 3rd opposite party ought to have repaired or rectified the defect within no time and in fact he failed to do so. Further the complainant got issued legal notice under Exhibit A5 and the opposite party received under Exhibit A6 but the 1st and 2nd opposite parties neither complied nor replied but the 3rd opposite party got replied stating that due to mishandling of the hand set mother board in the said system was damaged for which replacement of mother board is essential, further stated to the complainant to come and receive the mobile but the complainant failed to come to the 3rd opposite party and failed to receive, even if it is true, what prevented the 3rd opposite party not to send the mobile to the complainant or what prevented the 3rd opposite party not to deposit before this Forum, at least after filing of this complaint, that means the reply is not correct, so, as it is the acts of the 3rd opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and keeping the mobile with him since long as contended by the complainant also amounts to negligence on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Whatever it may be, since the defect of the mobile was not rectified by the opposite parties, and that the defect was occurred/noticed within the warranty period but failed to rectify though much time elapsed, so it amounts to deficiency in service, so the plea of the complainant has to be accepted and accepted and thereby these points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.



    8. Point No.3: In the result the complaint is allowed and the 2nd opposite party is hereby directed to take back the defective mobile set sold under Exhibit A1 from the complainant and to provide the defective free new mobile set of same model to the complainant. Thereafter the 2nd opposite party is at liberty to get it reimbursed from the 1st opposite party/the manufacturer on such request by the 2nd opposite party the 1st opposite party/manufacturer shall reimburse the loss to the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties 1 and 3 (jointly and severally) are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only to the complainant towards costs. Rest of the claims if any claimed by the complainant are rejected. Time for compliance one month.
  • edited June 2010
    Dear Sir

    I am an unfortunate and a poor user of Sony Ericsson Mobile phonewho is
    being harassed by your service center in New Delhi, India.

    I will request you to please help me.

    "I have purchased one SOny Ericsson P1i on 5th May 2009 fromCariano
    Telecom for a huge 19500/-(rs nineteen thousand five hundred only).

    all my friends were insisting that I should go for a NOKIA if I
    amspending that much but still I trusted Sony and invested in that. But
    after thepainful experience, I think they were right. Even they have
    the right to teaseme and they do.

    My handset started giving few pronlems like loosing network veryoften
    and display also used to go blank.

    I deposited the handset in your service center RT Outsourcing
    Ltd.situated at District Center, Janak Puri, New delhi on 13/March/2010
    videworkorder no SE310RJK11547 and after 20 days I recieved it back
    on03/April/2010

    It was still with same problems with an added problem that mtmemory
    card was also not working now.

    I deposited the handset back again on 24/April/2010 vide workorderno
    SE310RJK12423

    When on last friday I went to service center, I was shoked by
    therudeness of service center in telling me that the handset will not
    be coveredunder warranty since LCD was broken.

    I was in a fix since after 1 month of depositing the handset yourexpert
    engineers came to know that LCD was broken of a WORKING HANDSET
    whichwas handed over to your service center in prefectly working
    condition.

    I am left with no option and choice except to speak to
    higherauthorities like you and update you regarding the FRADULENT
    PRACTICES beingfollowed by your service centers.

    I will request you to immediately look into the matter and I willlike
    you to help me on 2 things

    1. I want an apology fron Service Center for the fraud andharrasment
    done to me
    2. I will now not take this handset model (P1i) since your
    servicecenter has told me that the model is OBSELETE and that no parts
    are availablefor repairing.

    Waiting for reply
    Kamil

    9582827418
  • vikram singh chauhanvikram singh chauhan Junior Member
    edited June 2010
    i am vikram singh chauhan , just passed my graduation.
    i had bought C510 model on 30- august-2009.
    i hadsome display problems in my cell and so i went to the authorised sony ericsson service center.
    i was very pleased in the beginning as the responsible people there told me that within 2-4 days they will fix my problem. they had called me in the evening to know whether i am willing to repair my cell as they were charging aroung 2600 /-
    i asked them to wait and i will call them after a day as my final semester exams were going on.
    but when i went there to enquire about my cell . they said it has been dispatched to our workshop.
    I WAS STILL OKAY WITH THEIR IRRESPONSIBLE ATTITUDE.
    problem started when i did not got any call from them even after waiting for 5 odd days.
    I GAVE MY CELL ON 25-05-2010 to the service center, as my semester exams got over by 26th may and i had to wait just for their delayed response.
    and today its been 8th of june.
    its been 5 times i have been running around ,waiting for hours at their center,burning my petrol, my money, an cost of living ... since here in bangalore i have no guardians.
    EVERYTIME I GO THERE- they say-(we will give you a call by evening) , its been so bad on their part
    and to worsen my situation one lady at the center lost her cool on me and said why you keep coming here.
    i am feeling helpless and cheated by sony ericsson.
    i have always bought sony ericsson sets .. but now after dealing with so much trouble and humiliation i am never willing to buy it in future .
    i strongly ask and want an strict action against this...
    i want my cell back and repaired and the charged some of money should not be charged.
    or if they have lost my cell i want a new handset
    it is harassment ,literaly
  • ANITA SARAOGIANITA SARAOGI Junior Member
    edited July 2010
    I have purchased a sony ericsson handset product description as 000097774 Sony Ericson Naite with IMEI no 356813035697347 on 07/01/2010 frpm Essar telecom Retail Ltd, 64A, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata 700 001 vide Invoice No. WB/01074/00001/9078 dt. 07/01/2010. But after 6 months the handset is giving problem ; some times it automaticaly gets off or sometime it is showing that insert Sim. I gave the handset to Aryan IT Services at Poddar Court, gate no3, 2nd Floor, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata 700 001 for checking the problem on 30/06/2010 with work order no. SE310ATS11809. On 03/07/2010, they say that liquid have been found in the handset and to repair it, charges will apply. But. this is to inform you that I my handset have never fallen into water and any liquid has never fallen on the handset. This is purely the handset problem and it should be repaired without any charge as it is in the warranty period and it is the liability of the company. I request you to look into the matter and ask the Service Centre to repair it without charge.
  • sridaran88sridaran88 Junior Member
    edited July 2010
    My name is Sridaran Ravikumar , TSO ,HCL TECHNOLOGIES,CHENNAI,INDIA.

    I was a proud owner of a SE K550i mobile. I had a problem with it , the function of the hash key got changed to that of the menu key and i could'nt use any features in the mobile , b'coz the option to cancel or end gets selected automatically.

    I took the mobile to a authorised service centre in vellore( my home town) and the man incharge told after a single glance at the mobile that the problem is with the IC and the mobile has to be sent to chennai.

    I work in chennai and so i got the address of the service centre which is in Greams road , thousand lights , Chennai Ph No: +914466213082

    I went there by first week of June'2010.

    I gave my mobile to them and explained the problem and also told about the IC.
    They took my mobile to a "Hardware Check" and after twenty minutes came out and said that the fault is definetly with the keypad.

    They informed me of the charges and told that it would take atleast two days to do the service and also told that I would be updated regarding the progress , which at the first place they didn't!! ( WORK ORDER NUMBER : 19983)

    I had given them my friend's mobile number.

    I waited for a weak and phoned them and i came to know that its ready.

    I went to them happily to receive my mobile and i paid the money and they asked me to check it.

    The worst thing that i saw is the keypad has been changed and the problem become worse. I could see that they haven't checked the mobile after doing the service.

    When i asked about it there came a lethorgic answer that it would have worked when the engineer changed the keypad.


    They again took the mobile to examine it and after an other twenty minutes they informed me that the mobile has to be sent to higher level service and it might take ten days and they are not sure whether the issue will be resolved or not!!
    I saw a person waiting at the centre, he was worrying about his brand new mobile which he gave to this centre before six months!!!
    and still they have it.


    Despite that i gave my mobile to be sent to the higher level service and again they informed me that i would be kept informed, which again did'nt happen.

    My parents were worried at that time b'coz they were not able to contact me. I had no other go and i bought a new samsumg mobile for 2500 Rs.


    I waited , waited and after few days i phoned them daily to know about the mobile and nearly after two and a half weeks time i got an answer that it is ready.


    I went there , they informed me that the problem was with the keypad and they have changed it.
    I paid Rs.664 and got my mobile back and everything was fine.

    For the worse it was only for two days , the problem that i had ,surfaced again!

    I've given Rs.664 for a service which worked only for two days!!

    I had a tight schedule at work and could'nt reach them immediately, but when i phoned they said its ok if i come a week later.

    I sent my friend with all the details , my old keypad, and the mobile with the new key pad.
    It was on 3rd of July


    My friend went there and was not treated well by the staff at there. They made him wait for nearly five hours , and they checked my mobile five to six times facing a negative response from my friend each time.


    Then they shouted at him by saying " Why do you complain again and again by saying keypad not working? Don't you know how to use a mobile?"


    He works for Cognizant and a techie by himself faced this nasty behaviour , blasted at them and after which
    they came to a conclusion.

    They said that the mobile will be kept under examination by the engineers and will inform us about the results.

    They informed me finally that the problem can't be resolved by the engineers as the problem is with the board and they promised me my money back.

    Its not a happy news b'coz they found the problem only after a month and i'm skeptical about the skills of the engineers who work their and also at the " Higher Level Service".

    They gave me a lot of mental stress and i was worried about my mobile loosing concentration on my work

    Now they got the new keypad back and said that they have ro send an email to someone incharge to get the money back and it would take a week to get a response because the money was paid last month.

    I had already spent a month and a half without my mobile and it was on 12th of july 2010

    I wonder why would that be , a week to get a response to give me my money back !!

    But still i accepted b'coz i was not in a mood to fight and i also convinced myself with the reason they told me.

    And again i was informed that i would be kept infromed, which fro the third time did'nt happen!!!

    I'm still waiting for a response from them!!

    I had mental stress above all i did'nt have my mobile in my hands for more than a month!

    I loved being a sony ericsson mobile user and so do my friends , and i still would buy an other SE mobile in future.

    But with this level of customer service experience i highly doubt that it would happen!!!

    I hope that i would get my money back soon and i would be glad to become a member of the SE again only if that happens!!
  • adv.richaadv.richa Moderator
    edited July 2010
    sridaran88 wrote: »
    My name is Sridaran Ravikumar , TSO ,HCL TECHNOLOGIES,CHENNAI,INDIA.

    I was a proud owner of a SE K550i mobile. I had a problem with it , the function of the hash key got changed to that of the menu key and i could'nt use any features in the mobile , b'coz the option to cancel or end gets selected automatically.

    I took the mobile to a authorised service centre in vellore( my home town) and the man incharge told after a single glance at the mobile that the problem is with the IC and the mobile has to be sent to chennai.

    I work in chennai and so i got the address of the service centre which is in Greams road , thousand lights , Chennai Ph No: +914466213082

    I went there by first week of June'2010.

    I gave my mobile to them and explained the problem and also told about the IC.
    They took my mobile to a "Hardware Check" and after twenty minutes came out and said that the fault is definetly with the keypad.

    They informed me of the charges and told that it would take atleast two days to do the service and also told that I would be updated regarding the progress , which at the first place they didn't!! ( WORK ORDER NUMBER : 19983)

    I had given them my friend's mobile number.

    I waited for a weak and phoned them and i came to know that its ready.

    I went to them happily to receive my mobile and i paid the money and they asked me to check it.

    The worst thing that i saw is the keypad has been changed and the problem become worse. I could see that they haven't checked the mobile after doing the service.

    When i asked about it there came a lethorgic answer that it would have worked when the engineer changed the keypad.


    They again took the mobile to examine it and after an other twenty minutes they informed me that the mobile has to be sent to higher level service and it might take ten days and they are not sure whether the issue will be resolved or not!!
    I saw a person waiting at the centre, he was worrying about his brand new mobile which he gave to this centre before six months!!!
    and still they have it.


    Despite that i gave my mobile to be sent to the higher level service and again they informed me that i would be kept informed, which again did'nt happen.

    My parents were worried at that time b'coz they were not able to contact me. I had no other go and i bought a new samsumg mobile for 2500 Rs.


    I waited , waited and after few days i phoned them daily to know about the mobile and nearly after two and a half weeks time i got an answer that it is ready.


    I went there , they informed me that the problem was with the keypad and they have changed it.
    I paid Rs.664 and got my mobile back and everything was fine.

    For the worse it was only for two days , the problem that i had ,surfaced again!

    I've given Rs.664 for a service which worked only for two days!!

    I had a tight schedule at work and could'nt reach them immediately, but when i phoned they said its ok if i come a week later.

    I sent my friend with all the details , my old keypad, and the mobile with the new key pad.
    It was on 3rd of July


    My friend went there and was not treated well by the staff at there. They made him wait for nearly five hours , and they checked my mobile five to six times facing a negative response from my friend each time.


    Then they shouted at him by saying " Why do you complain again and again by saying keypad not working? Don't you know how to use a mobile?"


    He works for Cognizant and a techie by himself faced this nasty behaviour , blasted at them and after which
    they came to a conclusion.

    They said that the mobile will be kept under examination by the engineers and will inform us about the results.

    They informed me finally that the problem can't be resolved by the engineers as the problem is with the board and they promised me my money back.

    Its not a happy news b'coz they found the problem only after a month and i'm skeptical about the skills of the engineers who work their and also at the " Higher Level Service".

    They gave me a lot of mental stress and i was worried about my mobile loosing concentration on my work

    Now they got the new keypad back and said that they have ro send an email to someone incharge to get the money back and it would take a week to get a response because the money was paid last month.

    I had already spent a month and a half without my mobile and it was on 12th of july 2010

    I wonder why would that be , a week to get a response to give me my money back !!

    But still i accepted b'coz i was not in a mood to fight and i also convinced myself with the reason they told me.

    And again i was informed that i would be kept infromed, which fro the third time did'nt happen!!!

    I'm still waiting for a response from them!!

    I had mental stress above all i did'nt have my mobile in my hands for more than a month!

    I loved being a sony ericsson mobile user and so do my friends , and i still would buy an other SE mobile in future.

    But with this level of customer service experience i highly doubt that it would happen!!!

    I hope that i would get my money back soon and i would be glad to become a member of the SE again only if that happens!!


    Hello Consumer Court Members,
    If you are facing the same problem with your SE K550i again and again even after many repair by the Parent company, it means the problem is irreparable and the product is faulty and need to be replaced. For that you need to register your complaint with their Customer care, and in case you are not satisfied with Customer Care response then send a written notice to the CMD of SONY ERICSSON mention all the details in it, attach all the photocopy of relevant documents like bill, and the job sheet and ask them for the refund/replacement + damages within the mentioned time in the notice.
    Wait for their response and revert us back.
    For notice reference Visit: http://www.consumercourt.in/address/14404-notice-before-filing-consumer-complaint.html
    Note: Keep all the copy of Complaint, Notice and the registered post slip, this may help you if you need to knock the consumer forum.
  • amugunthanamugunthan Junior Member
    edited August 2010
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    This is regarding the complaint for the mobile(sony-c510) purchased from the Purchaser(please find below) is not functioning properly from the very next week of the purchase date (19/03/2010)
    I have made complaints(thrice) about this to the respective shop, but their action is not effective in alleviating the problem.

    The problems are as below.
    1) switch off& disconnecting the call are not happening correctly.
    2) Joystick not functioning properly
    3) Night mode flash settings not working prperly


    Kindly take necessary action to provide me a new mobile (same model) from the purchaser/from the manufacturer(Sony) or the actual cost
    of the mobile and also additional compensation as a part of our unnecessary efforts spent from our side.



    Purchaser Address:
    Poorvika Moble World
    No.22, Muthurange Mudali Street,(Near Municipal Office),
    West Tambaram, Chennai 600 045

    Regards
    A.Mugunthan(9444542631)
  • vinaykumar77vinaykumar77 Junior Member
    edited October 2010
    I Vinay kumar purchased "sony ericsson j105" on feb 27 2010, from the mobile store gandhi bazar, basavangudi, bangalore. After a month of purchase i noticed that my phone didn't switch on, so i gave it to sony ericsson service center jaynagar bangalore and the problem was rectified. again the next month same problem appeared. so again i gave it to the same service center and they asked for mother board replacement, and they "returned it after a month".After 2 days the same problem appeared. and again asked for mother board replacement and kept it for one month. Now again the same problem after a day.Please help me out regarding this inconvenience. please take necessary actions on the sony Ericsson ltd. And help out with the mobile replacement.
    bill and delivery challans are attached below...
Sign In or Register to comment.