Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/475/2014

Shalu Arora W/o Dr.Sunil Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ambey Electronics Services. - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kamboj

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 475 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 12.11.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 17.03.2016.

Shalu Arora, aged about 38 years wife of Dr. Sunil Arora resident of House No. 343/ID, Sawan Puri, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Ambay Electronics Services, Choti Line, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/Partner/ Manager
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Anil Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate, counsel for respondents

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Shalu Arora has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to give new mobile set make Sony Z-Ultra and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile set Sony XPeria Z C6602, IMEI No. 3556605-384485-7 from Nagpal Sales Corporation Shop No.3, Old Char Chaman, Link Road, Urban Estate, Karnal for an amount of Rs. 38,000/- vide Bill No. 1068 dated 7.5.2013. After purchase of aforesaid mobile phone, it was working smoothly during its warranty period but as the warranty period expired, the same became defective. On this the complainant contacted the OP No.1, who is authorized service centre of OP No.2 i.e. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and told about the defect in the said mobile phone. After checking the said mobile phone, the OP No.1 told her that Sony company has launched a scheme under which if a person wants to replace his old mobile set with new one, then he/she has to pay some amount and company will provide same new mobile set. The OP No.1 told that if she wants to get same new mobile set, then she will have to pay Rs. 12995/-. On this, the complainant asked the Op No.1 that if she wants to get any other model of same company then what amount she has to deposit. The OP No.1 told the complainant that if she wants to get another model, then the complainant has to pay more margin money. After hearing about the aforesaid scheme of OP No.1 she selected model Z-Ultra of Sony company and paid an amount of Rs. 17,995/- to OP No.1 through DD No. 002774 dated 6.9.2014 of IDBI Bank, Yamuna Nagar and Op No.1 assured her that they will provide the said mobile up to 16.9.2014. After making the payment of aforesaid amount, when the complainant went to OP No.1 on 16.9.2014 to get new mobile set i.e. Z-ultra, then Op No.1 told that she has to come after few days. After repeated visits, the OP No.1 did not give mobile set and ultimately the OP No.1 told that they cannot provide the said mobile set as the company has ended the scheme. On this, the complainant approached the higher officials of Op No.1 and talked with one Mrs. Jasvinder Kaur, who assured that they will provide the mobile set very soon but after lapse of sufficient time, the OP No.1 did not give the mobile set to the complainant despite repeated requests and all the assurance of the OPs remained futile. From the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs, it is amply clear that the OPs are indulged in wrong, illegal and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.   

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is vexatious, baseless and is more of an abuse of the due process of law and on merit it has been stated that Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of distributing and marketing of mobile phones and other electronics goods under the brand name of SONY and it holds an impeccable position in the mobile phone industry in India. It has been further submitted that the liability of OPs lies strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it on its product and the OPs cannot be held liable for claims falling outside the scope of warranty. A copy of warranty terms as provided by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is annexed as Annexure R-3. The terms of warranty provided by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant clearly states the following

                        “If during the warranty period, this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in design, materials or workmanship, Sony authorized distributors or service partners, in the country/region where you purchased the product, will, at their option, either repair, replace or refund the purchase price of the product in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated herein”.

4.                     As per the terms of the warranty, it is clear that the discretion to either repair or replace the handset in case of a failure lies with Sony and/or its authorized dealers and/or service centre. It has been admitted that as per the records of company, the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia Z mobile having model No. C6602 and IMEI No. 355666053844857 on 7.5.2013. After using the handset for a period of more than one year admittedly without any problem whatsoever, the complainant visited the authorized service centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.1) with the complaint of “Auto Restart/hanging” with respect to handset on 1.9.2014. It has been further submitted that since the warranty on the handset had expired, the complainant was informed that any repairs needed with respect to the handset would be carried out on a chargeable basis. It has been admitted that she was informed that she would be able to exchange the current handset for the same model for a cost of Rs. 12,995/- and the complainant expressed her interest to exchange the current model of handset with a superior one, being Xperia Z Ultra. It has been further admitted that the service engineer informed the complainant that she will have to pay a sum of Rs. 17,995/- to exchange against the superior model. It has been further admitted that upon receipt of a demand draft for Rs. 17,995/-, the OP No.1 requested the complainant to collect the handset but the complainant refused to collect the handset and demanded that a sealed unit be provided to her. It has been further submitted that the OPs have made several repeated requests to the complainant to collect the new handset, however, the complainant remained adamant in her demand of receiving a sealed unit only. It has been further admitted that the OPs are unable to provide a sealed unit of the handset and no any commitment was made to the complainant. It has been further submitted as per the policy of Op No.2, if the complainant wants a sealed box unit of the handset, she will have to pay 80% of the MRP of any handset she wishes to purchase. As such, the complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the OPs specially in the light of the fact that a satisfactory solution was offered to the complainant and it is the complainant who refused to take it.  It has been further submitted that the present complaint has been filed without any cause and is an attempt to malign the well established reputation of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and to make wrongful monetary gains there from and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Bill No. 1068 dated 07.05.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Job sheet dated 01.09.2014 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of DD dated 6.9.2014 amounting to Rs. 17,995/- as Annexure C-3, List of top ten mobiles as annexure C-4  and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Priyank Chauhan, son of Shri Ram Pal Singh, available at Sony India Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Resolution dated 7.2.2014 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Authority letter dated 19.12.2014 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of Important information/ terms and conditions as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 07.05.2013 vide Bill No. 1068 for a sum of Rs. 38,000/- from Nagpal Sales Corporation, Karnal, Manufactured by OP No.3 and she used the same till 1.9.2014 without any defect. Thereafter, the complainant approached to the OP No.1 with a problem of auto restart/ hanging in his mobile set as has been admitted by both the parties. It is also admitted fact that the OP No.1 told to the complainant that the company has launched a scheme for the exchange of old mobile set of same model, if she pays Rs. 12995/- to the OP No.1. It is also admitted fact that the complainant expressed her interest to exchange the current model of Handset with a superior one, of Xperia Z Ulta and paid a sum of Rs. 17,995/- to the OP No.1 through DD bearing No. 002774 dated 6.9.2014 as per exchange scheme for this mobile set.

9.                     The only plea of the OPs is that accordingly, upon received a demand draft of Rs. 17995/-, the representative of the OPs company requested the complainant to collect the hand set. However, the complainant refused to collect the hand set and demanded that a sealed unit be provided to her. It has been further submitted that as the OPs were unable to provide a sealed unit of the handset as there was not commitment made to the complainant because as per the policy of the OP No.2, if the complainant want to a sealed box unit of the hand set, she will have to pay 80% of the MRP of any hand set she wishes to purchase.  

10                    On the other hand, counsel for the complainant hotly argued that the complainant deposited the requisite amount demanded by the OP No.1 for replacing the old mobile set with new one i.e. Xperia Z Ultra but the OPs neither provided new mobile set nor returned the old mobile set  alongwith amount of Rs. 17,995/- received by OP No.1 from the complainant and continued lingering on the matter with one pretext or the other.

11                    After going through the above noted circumstances, it reveals that the complainant might have suffered some hardship which enforced her to file the present complaint. It is also not disputed that the mobile in question was deposited by the complainant with the OP No.1 and there is no reason to disbelieve or to discredit, aforesaid pleaded case of the complainant, which gets full support and corroboration, not only from her supporting affidavit Annexure CW/A, but also from the copy of job sheet Annexure C-2 which shows that the mobile hand set in question was taken by the service centre alongwith DD No. 002774 dated 6.9.2014 amounting to Rs. 17,995/- (Annexure C-3) for providing the new mobile set in exchange offer.  Neither the service centre returned the old mobile set to the complainant nor refunded the amount of Rs. 17,995/- even after filing the present complaint.   

12.                   The aim of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better and all round Protection to the consumers and this is the only law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to redress complaints arisen from it and it also provides effective safeguards to the consumers against different type of exploitation such as defective goods, unsatisfactory or deficient service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, mobile set has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different models of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer

13.                   In these circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of Ops as neither the old mobile set was returned to the complainant nor amount of Rs. 17,995/- received vide DD bearing No. 002774 dated 6.9.2014 was refunded to the complainant. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant and thus we direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of this order.

(i)         To refund the amount of Rs 17,995/- (received by the OPs vide DD No. 002774 dated 6.9.2014) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of deposition till its actual realization

2. To refund the amount of Rs. 26,600/- being 70% of the total cost of the old mobile after deducting depreciation.
3. To pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service. ‘
4. To pay Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses

 

14.                   The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period otherwise all the aforesaid awarded amounts shall fetch further simple interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. The complaint is decided accordingly in the above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.17.03.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER