1. The Complainant purchased a mobile set for personal use from O.P. No.1 on 09.01.2014, paid Rs. 32,900/- vide invoice No. 2862 dated 09.01.2014 which is a product of the O.P. No.2, Sony Experia Model No. 6603. The warranty for the set was for one year. On 20.09.2014 the Complainant noticed that there is a crack in the inner part of the mobile set which was visible but cannot be felt on touching the screen. The Complainant was assured by O.P. No.1 to replace on availability but it was in vain. The Complainant was harassed several times by coming back. The Complainant could not use the mobile set freely and deprived of enjoying. A lawyer notice was served on 24.10.2014 for replacement of the mobile set but the O.P. No.1 not bothered to reply. The O.P. No.1 neither repaired the mobile set not replaced the same, which amounts to deficiency in service.
2. The case of the O.P.s is that, the mobile business under the brand name ‘Sony’ was carried out by Sony Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. has changed w.e.f 1^st sept. 2013 to Sony India Pvt.Ltd. as per order dated 23.07.2013 of the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi. The O.P. No.1 is the authorised dealer of O.P. No.2 Mr. Priyank Chouhan is authorised by the O.P. No.2 company in its board resolution dated 07.02.2014.

The Complainant has purchased a Sony Experia Z₃ handset model No. 6603 on 09.04.2014. The warranty of the product is for one year from the day of purchase. The O.Ps are liable to provide free of cost repair on its product when the product is proved to be defective due to improper material, workmanship, any manufacturing defect or any other problem that has arisen in the product and not when it has arisen due to an external cause beyond the control of O.Ps. The Complainant has never visited the O.P. No.1 with any issue. The Complainant is at present also enjoying the mobile set.

The O.P. No.2 on 21.02.2015 sent a letter to Complainant to provide the details of handset and service Job numbers to inspect the handset and also requested to visit the authorised service centre i.e. O.P. No.1.

The Complaint is a false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect claim of the Complainant against the O.Ps. All the allegations are denied. There is no any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed for.

3. After perusal of the Complaint, version of the O.Ps and documents filed by the parties the following issues are framed;
103606587.  

1. Whether the Complainant raised any issue regarding the hand set mobile before the O.Ps before filing of this Complaint?
2. Are the O.Ps deficient in their service or failed to replace the defective product?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitle to get?

ISSUE NO.1:

It is the admitted case of both the parties that the complaint purchased one Sony Experia Z C6603 handset for an amount of Rs. 32,990/- from the O.P. No.1, authorised dealer of O.P. No.2 Company. The Complainant in the complaint not mentioned the dates of visit to the O.P. No.1nor any supporting documents have been filed relating to service details. The Complainant served a regd. Advocate notice dated 24.10.2014 to the O.P. No.1 and the present complaint was filed on 14.01.2015.

From the Annexure R-4 of O.P. No.2 it reveals that the notice was given to the Complainant to give details of the product purchased. No any other documents have been filed by the O.P. No.1 nor by the O.P. No.2 regarding correspondences. After receipt of advocate notice also the O.P.1 has not taken any steps for resolution of dispute nor able to provide any documents to the Forum/Commission. The O.P. No.2 to patch up the lacuna issued the notice annexure R-4.

Total silence of the O.P. No.1 proves the deficiency in service to the Complainant and shifting responsibility to O.P. No.2 cannot disprove the liability.

The Complainant has not provided any documents relating to service of the product, so also the O.P. No.1 about the service provided to the Complainant. Accordingly I am not inclined to discuss on the point of warranty or guarantee of the product. But it is true that the Complainant ventilated his grievance through Advocate notice dated 24.10.2014 and no any steps have been taken by the O.P. No.1 to satisfy his customer nor intimated the grievance to the O.P. No.2.

The issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2:

The O.P. No.1 neither handled the grievance of the complainant nor informed the O.P. No.2. which proves the negligence to a consumer. Regarding defective goods no any documentary evidence has been filed nor the product before the commission.

The O.Ps are deficient in their service. Issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3:

For the deficiency in service of the O.Ps, the Complainant knocked the door of the Forum/Commission and entitled for relief as under.

          The Complaint is allowed partly on contest. For deficiency in service the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the day of receipt of the order along with interest @ 4% P.A. failing which the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realisation.

Order pronounced in open court on this 29^th day of April 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.