Date of Filing: 24.12.2018
Date of Order: 02.03.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Tuesday the 02nd day of March, 2021
C.C.No. 487 /2018
Between
N. Pramod, S/o Late. Narender,
Aged about 33 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. 8-3-230/25, Venkatgiri, Yousufguda,
Hyderabad.
….Complainant
And
- The Managing Director,
Sony India Pvt.Ltd,
CIN No. U74899DL1994PTC062781,
A-18, Mohan Co-operative Industries Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044(India)
- The Managing Director,
Bajaj Electronics,
Dealers in Electrionics & Home Appliances,
Plodt No. 722, Road No. 36, Pemmasani Complex,
Near Madhapur P.S., Jubileehills, Hyderabad.
- The Manager,
Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd.,
H.No. 1-2-63&64, 1-2-73/2 S.R. Arcade,
First Floor, Park Land, Part-B, Secunderabad.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Ms. P. Pallavi.
Counsel for the Opposite party No.1 : Mr. Rajath Bhardwaj.
Counsel for the Opposite party No.2 : M/s. Santosh Singh & Associates,
Counsel for the Opposite party No.3 : Absent
O R D E R
(By Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)on behalf of the Bench)
1. This Complaint is preferred U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging the Handset purchased by him manufacturing defect and opposite party No.1 filed selling its dealer opposite party No.2 indulge an unfair trade practice. Hence seeking compensation and other reliefs which he is entitled for.
2. The case of complainant in brief:- On 28.04.2017, the complainant purchased a Sony Mobile Handset G3116 EPERIA XA1 manufactured by opposite party No.1 from its dealer / opposite party No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs. 19,999/-. The opposite party No.3 is the authorized service center of Opposite party No.1 / manufacturer. Ever since the purchase of mobile, he has been facing problems with touch screen and the Handset was handed over to the opposite party No.3 to rectify it on 06.06.2017. After rectification of the problem, opposite party No.3 delivered back the handset to the complainant but the problem continued even on 12.10.2017 & 30.10.2017. Therefore, the complainant visited opposite party No.3 and explained the problem so, the product was replaced on 31.10.2017 with a new mobile but the replaced mobile also got the same problem. On 07.04.2018, he again visited the opposite party No.3 explaining the problem. The problem of touch screen persisted and opposite party No.3 failed to rectify the product.
Since the problem with the product was not rectified, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 18.07.2018 and opposite party gave a reply on 26.08.2018 informing that they would replace the product with upgraded model but the complainant was not satisfied with earlier replaced one. Since the opposite party No.1 did not offer to refund the cost of the product and suffered inconvenience on account of manufacturing defect to the product and suffered mental agony and loss. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint claiming for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the opposite parties and costs of the complaint at Rs. 10,000/- .
2. The stand taken by the opposite party No.1 and 3 is that the complainant purchased the Mobile handset from dealer / opposite party No.2 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions and applications along with warranty terms and conditions. The Warranty provided for product is one year from the date of original purchase. On 06.06.2017, complainant visited opposite party No.3 / service center with a issue of touch screen not working without any delay opposite party No.3 attended the issue and inspected the handset and observed that there were scratches on the mobile and the condition of handset was not good and it appeared to be roughly used. Even then, the opposite party No.3 / service center replaced the handset free of cost. Later again on 12.10.2017, complainant visited opposite party No.3 service center with an issue of touch screen not working. Without any delay , Opposite party No.3 / service center on inspection of the handset observed that there were scratches on the back panel of the handset and condition was not good. Opposite party No. 3 instead of carrying out any repairs, it replaced the handset with a refurbished handset free of costs. Again on 07.04.2018 complainant visited opposite party No.3 / service center raising issue in handset at a stage when the warranty period was about to expiry in few days. Opposite party No.3 service center without any delay replaced necessary parts free of cost and made it ready for collection by the complainant but the complainant initially having approached for repair action refused to collect the handset from opposite party No.3 service center and instead he sent a legal notice with false and vague claims. In response to the said legal notice, a reply was sent on 26.08.2018 informing the complainant that in order to resolve the issue without an admission of any liability offered to replace the handset with a fresh mobile handset of upgraded model but complainant paid no heed and started raising unreasonable demands.
At no point of time, the issue of complaint raised by the complainant was delayed in attending and no inconvenience was caused to him while dealing with a issue of handset. The complainant instead of appreciating the service solution provided by them he preferred to file the present complaint with false allegations. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief prayed for.
The stand of the opposite party No.2 is that the complainant’s entire allegation is that the handset purchased from it got manufacturing defect. Hence there is no specific allegations against the Opposite party No.2. The dealer has nothing to do with the manufacturing process of the product and no labiality can be attributed to it for any manufacturing defect to the product.
3. In the course of enquiry, the complainant has filed evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complainant and got marked exhibits Ex.A1 to A11. The opposite parties also filed their evidence affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 documents on their behalf. Written arguments are filed by both parties complainant and opposite party No.2. Heard both parties.
On a consideration of the material brought on record, the following points have emerged for consideration.
- Whether the complainant has made out a case of deficiency of
service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties
No. 1,2,3.? - Whether the complainant is entitle for a compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/-.? - To what relief.?
Point No.1:-
As could be seen from the complaint, whenever the complainant visited the service center with the problem of touch screen, opposite party No.3 immediately attended to it and on one occasion, the opposite party No.3 has replaced the product with a refurbished one. The complainant has nowhere in the complaint has alleged that the opposite party No.3 has caused any delay in attending the issue of touch screen so on the face of it there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.3. Now coming to the aspect of liability of opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 being the dealer of opposite party No.1/manufacturer has no liability either to replace the product sold by it or to attend the repairs of it ones the product is sold to the Consumer / Complainant under an invoice, the duty of the opposite party No.2 is over. It is pertinent to note that the complainant did not allege that opposite party No.2 failed in its job to provide the particulars of the manufacturer of the product sold by it so as to say there was deficiency of service on the part of it. Hence against opposite party No.2 also complainant cannot allege any deficiency of service.
Considering the point of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, It is evident from the job card under Ex.A2 that within 2 months from the date of purchase of the handset under Ex.A1 / invoice, the problem of the touch screen was cropped up. On taking for repairs on 06.06.2017, the problem was immediately attended by opposite party No.3. Again the same issue has arised and the complainant visited opposite party No.3 on 12.10.2017 as evidenced by Ex.A3 raising the issue of touch problem. The opposite party No.3/service center though attended the repairs and handed over the hand set to the complainant, the problem of touch screen persisted and the complainant had to visit the opposite party No.3 on 30.10.2017 and again on 31.10.2017 with the same problem as evidenced under Ex.A5 & ExA6. However on 31.10.2017, opposite party No.3 instead of carrying out the repairs to the handset, the product was replaced with the new one at free of cost but even than the new handset had the same touch screen problem and finally on 07.04.2017, the handset was handed over to the opposite party No.3.
As per the version of opposite party No.1 and 3, complainant has accepted to carry out necessary repairs. As such the opposite party No.3 service center replaced necessary parts free of costs and made it for collection and complainant did not turn up to take the handset and the handset remained with the opposite party No.3. The complainant thereafter, got issued a legal notice under ExA8 explaining circumstances under which he was issuing the notice and asked opposite party No.1 to replace the mobile with a fresh piece or return the amount with interest. For the said notice, opposite party No.1 got issued reply under Ex.A9 on 26.08.2018 and agreed to exchange the handset with upgraded mobile but without accessories and packing but the complainant did not respond on it. So it is evident that not only the original purchased handset given to the complainant was having manufacturing defect but even the replaced product suffered from the same problem and now the offer made by opposite party No.1 in the replay notice under Ex.A9 is only to exchange handset with upgraded model but without accessories and packing. In the absence of packing, the customer cannot accept new product. Hence, the complainant rightly did not respond for it and preferred the present complaint. So it is evident that even the replaced product suffered from the same defect. Hence, the opposite party No.1 by supplying the products having inherent manufacturing defects has indulged in unfair trade practice. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.2:-
The Complainant has established that the opposite party No.1 sold the product having manufacturing defects hence complainant is entitled for the relief and direct the opposite party No.1 either to deliver a new handset with all accessories in sealed package or refund the cost of product of Rs. 19,999/- with interest @ 10% p.a from the date of purchase to the day of payment. Complainant suffered inconvenience because of the product sold to him has manufacturing defect. Hence the opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards inconvenience suffered and is further directed to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of this complaint. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.3
In the result, this complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party No.1
- to replace the product with a new one of same model with all accessories in a sealed package or to refund the cost of the product with interest @ 10% p.a from the date of the purchase to the date of payment.
- to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience to the complainant.
- to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
- Complaint against opposite party No.2 and 3 is dismissed.
Time for compliance 45 days from the date of service of this order.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this 02nd the day of March, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1– Copy of Receipt of Bajaj Electronics dt. 28.04.2017.
Ex.A2 – Copy of Original Invoice dt. 20.06.2017.
Ex.A3 - Copy of Service Job Sheet dt. 12.10.2017.
Ex.A4 – Copy of Service Job sheet dt. 07.04.2018.
Ex.A5 – Copy of Service Job sheet dt. 30.10.2018.
Ex.A6 – Copy of Original invoice dt. 13.11.2017.
Ex.A7 – Copy of Invoice dt. 13.11.2017.
Ex.A8 – Copy of Legal notice dt. 18.07.2018.
Ex.A9 – Copy of reply notice dt. 26.08.2018.
Ex.A10 – Copy of Acknowledgment Card dt. 21.07.2018.
Ex.A11 – Copy of Acknowledgment card dt. 25.07.2018.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1– Copy of Authority letter of Sony India Pvt ltd. dt.08.02.2019.
Ex.B2– Copy of Board Resolution letter dt. 07.02.2014.
Ex.B3– Copy of Bill/Invoice dt. 28.04.2017.
Ex.B4– Copy of Warranty of terms and conditions.
Ex.B5– Copy of Legal notice dt. 18.07.2018
MEMBER PRESIDENT
