BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

18^th DAY OF AUGUST 2015

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay him the bill price of the mobile handset amounting to Rs.33,790/- and Rs.16,210/- towards damages and the cost of the litigation.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant purchased a mobile Sony Eperia Z C6602 with IMEI No.355666055754401, Sl Number 1270-7362 on 26^th July 2013 from OP-1.  After purchasing the said handset the complainant started facing problems like heating and hanging so he took the said handset to OP-2, the authorized service center and he was issued with the job sheet and after attending the complaint the handset was returned to him after 2-3 days.  Later from April 15^th again the complainant started facing the very same problem and in addition sensor problem.  Then again he went to the OP-2 and handed over the set and he was called back one or two days and when he visited the service center on 06^th May 2014 he was told that there is some major problem in the handset, therefore they are sending it to head service department and the repairs would take around 7-10 days and in the mean while he was given a standby mobile phone which is a lower end smart mobile as compared to the mobile handset purchased by the complainant.

On 10^th May 2014 when the complainant contacted OP-2 he was told that the handset will be ready by 15^th May 2014 and when he contacted on 15^th May 2014 he was informed that the problem is not yet fully attended and the mother board of the handset needs to be changed.  On 26^th May 2014 when the complainant visited the service center of OP-2, he was told that they have not yet received his handset as it is not yet repaired and it will take some more days for repairs.  When the complainant demanded the answers in writing, OP-2 refused to give anything in writing.  On the same day he sent a mail to all the OPs explaining the problems faced by him and also contacted the Sony mobile on 1800-3000-2800 and he was told that the problem will be attended within 2-3 days.  However, the handset was not returned even thereafter.  When he again contacted the OPs, he was asked to wait for 7 more days.  The complainant repeatedly visited OP-2, neither his handset returned nor anything was communicated to him in writing.  The standby phone was given to the complainant was of a low quality and the same was damaging the reputation of the complainant because of the indifferent attitude of the OPs in attending problems faced by the complainant.  He underwent huge mental agony and inconvenience and could not concentrate on his business resulting in huge loss.  Therefore, the complainant has approached this Forum.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for an order directing OPs to pay him the price of the said handset amounting to Rs.33,790/- and Rs.16,210/- towards damages and the expenses incurred by him in running around together with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of the complaint till realization.

2. In response to the notice, the OPs.2 & 3 appeared through their advocate and filed their version.  However, OP-1 failed to turn up and was placed ex-parte.

The sum and substance of the version filed by the OPs.2 & 3 are as under:

Previously the mobile business under the brand name ‘Sony’ was carried out by Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd.  However, w.e.f 1^st September 2013 Sony India Pvt Ltd., has taken over by Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd., and vide order dated 23^rd July 2013 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd., ceased to exist.

That OP-1 is the authorized dealer of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., OP-3 and OP-2 is authorized service center of OP-3.  As per the records of the company, the complainant has purchased a handset as described in the complaint on 26.07.2013.  The complainant has used the handset without any problem for a period of more than 6 months and thereafter approached OP-2 on 01.01.2014 with alleged problem of heating/hanging.  On examining, it was found that the alleged problem was because of software error and therefore the software of the handset was upgraded and handset was delivered to the complainant.  Subsequently the complainant approached OP-2 on 05.05.2014 with complaints of overheating, sensor, hanging with respect to the handset.  On examination, OP-2 discovered the PCB of the handset was required to be replaced in order to render the handset fit.  Since the necessary parts were not available with OP-2 at point of time therefore the handset was sent to another service center for repairs.  The delay that occurred in delivering the handset back to the complainant was only due to the fact that the handset had to be sent to another city and the same also had to undergo several rounds of inspection in order to ensure that no further problems occur in the handset.  The complainant was provided with a standby handset in order to ensure that he does not face any trouble in communicating during the period that the handset was with the OP-2.

The present complaint has been filed without cause and is an attempt to malign the well established reputation of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., and to make wrongful monetary gains there from.  The OPs at all times honoured the terms of the warranty provided by Sony India Pvt. Ltd., and provided full support to the complainant with respect to the handset on every occasions to the full satisfaction of the complainant.  The OPs serve strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it on its products.  The OPs cannot held liable for claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.  The warranty period for the said handset is one year from the date of purchase.  There is no merit in the complaint and the same has been filed by the complainant to make wrongful gain for himself.

For the aforesaid reasons, the OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.

          3. In view of the various contentions raised by both the parties in the respective pleadings the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        4. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint the complainant has produced the copy of the invoice under which he purchased the Sony Mobile handset, the copy of the service job sheet issued by OP-2 and the hard copy of e-mail dated 26^th May 2014 sent to the OPs and also his affidavit by way of evidence.  The complainant also submitted his written arguments.

5. The OPs in support of the contentions raised in their version filed the affidavit evidence of one of their executives by name Priyank Chauhan and also filed written submission.  The OPs also produced the copy of the warranty furnished to the complainant along with the mobile handset at the time of the sale.

6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, affidavits filed by both parties by way of evidence and documents relied upon by them also heard the oral arguments advanced by both the parties.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8. Admittedly the complainant purchased a mobile Sony Xperia Z C6602 with IMEI No.355666055754401 from             the authorized dealer on 26.07.2013 by paying a sum of Rs.33,790/-.  Admittedly the said mobile handset is covered by one year warranty as admitted by the OPs in their version.  The complainant in his affidavit filed in lieu of oral evidence reiterates the allegations made in the complaint.  Admittedly with the warranty period i.e., about 5-6 months from the date of purchase of the handset the complainant started facing problem of heating and hanging.  So he handed over the said handset to OP-2 the authorized service center for OPs.2 & 3 on 01.01.2014 for repairs and after attending the repairs the said handset was returned to the complainant.  However, again on April 15^th the complainant started facing the very same problem apart from sensor problem in the handset.  Therefore on 05.05.2014 he handed over the said handset for repairs again to OP-2 and was informed that this handset requires a day or two for repairs.  However, the OP-2 could not set right the problem in the handset and sent it to another service center and informed the complainant that it would take 7-10 days to attend the repairs and in the mean while the complainant was provided with a standby handset.  Admittedly the standby mobile set was not a Sony Xperia category but was a low end smart mobile phone.

9. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the OP-2 could not set right the problem in the handset and on his visit informed the complainant that the handset will be ready by 15^th May 2014.  However, the OP-2 could not meet the deadline set by them and asked the complainant to come on 24^th May 2014 to collect the handset.  However when the complainant visited OP-2 on 26^th May 2014 the handset was not yet ready and was informed that it would take some more days to set right the problem in the handset.  Despite several efforts made by the complainant by communicating the concerned in office of the OPs.2 & 3 he could not get back his handset on time.  Every time the complainant was made to wait for long time to get the answers from the concerned in the service center and ultimately even after waiting for sufficient long time the OPs have failed to return the handset to the complainant after sorting out the problems.

10. The OPs admitted the problems faced by the complainant with the handset and they also admitted the delay in attending the repairs.  However, according to the OPs since the handset was required to undergo various checks etc., it took sufficient long time for rectifying the problem faced with the handset.  It is pertinent to note here that despite retaining the handset with them for long time, OPs failed to repair the handset to the satisfaction of the complainant.  Admittedly the OPs are still retaining the handset with them which means that they are unable to resolve the defects in the handset till today.  It is argued on behalf of OPs that the complainant was not put to any inconvenience because of the defects in the handset as he was given a standby handset.  Admittedly the standby handset is not a premium quality handset like the one which the complainant had purchased from the OPs.  The fact remains that the complainant was made to run to the service center frequently without any results.  Looking to the nature of the defects it appears to us that the said handset had serious manufacturing defects.  Admittedly the problem with the handset occurred during the warranty period.  The OPs have also failed to provide satisfactory service to the complainant in attending to the defects occurring in the said handset.  It is also not the case of the OPs that the defects noticed in the handset were not manufacturing defects.  When the OPs have found that the defects noticed in the handset could not be set right within a reasonable time they ought to have replaced it with a new similar handset.  Though the OP-3 claims to be a reputed company but their conduct in handling this issue does not stand to their reputation.

11. The handset in question was certainly had manufacturing defects which the OPs failed to rectify.  The material placed on record by the complainant also goes to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Merely providing a standby handset does not absolve the OPs from their liability to rectify the defects in the handset within a reasonable time.  Certainly the complainant must have been put to lot of inconvenience and mental agony due to the manufacturing defects in the handset so also due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  In the given circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the OPs.2 & 3 shall have to be directed to pay the bill price of the mobile handset in question to the complainant together with adequate amount of compensation for the deficiency in service on their part with costs of the proceedings.  In our opinion, the following order will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.      

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OPs are directed to pay Rs.33,790/- being bill price of the handset to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony, inconvenience and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

The OPs shall pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant.

The complainant shall surrender the standby handset to the OPs as soon as he is paid the bill price of the handset together with compensation as ordered.

The OPs shall comply the order passed by this Forum within six weeks from today.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 18^th day of August 2015)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*