Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1175/2014

RAJAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

IMMORTAL SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

23 Dec 2015

ORDER

                        CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.      1175 / 2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  24/12/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 03/07/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          05/07/2017  In matter of

Mr  Rajat Tripathy, adult   

s/o  S K Tripathy

Office- D-416, Lawyers Chamber

Karkarduma Court Complex

Shahdara Delhi 110032………………….. ………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Immortal Services    

Sony Service Center, 1/15, 1^st Floor

Nr Lalita Park, Gurdwara Rd., Laxm Nagar, Delhi 110092

 

2 Sony India Pvt Ltd    

Regd office- A 31,

Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,  

Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044

 

David Sales Solutions

C-126, Shop No. 14,

Naraina Industrial Area Phase I, New Delhi 110028……………..……….Opponents

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant, Mr Rajat Tripathy, a practicing advocate, purchased a Sony Xperia mobile phone from OP3/David Sales Solutions on dated 16/03/2014 for a sum of Rs 18,700/- having IMEI no.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         358095053396519 vide invoice no. 5104 marked as Ex CW1/1.

Complainant stated that at the time of purchase it was told by OP3 that the said mobile had inbuilt 4GB memory which could store multiple applications, videos, photos besides having its own pre loaded applications. After some time of its use, the said mobile started showing full memory and hanging problem, so mobile was taken to its authorized service station as Immortal Services/OP1 on 09/04/2014. As per the job sheet no. W114040902514, Ex CW1/2, it was told that software required some setting, so after updating the software, the mobile was given back. After using for some more times, again hanging problem started again, so complainant took his mobile to OP1 on dated 01/10/2014 vide job sheet no. W114100103576 Ex CW1/3. But after some times, same problem re occurred, complainant told OP1 and 2 about the problem. It was told by OP2 that the said mobile had 4GB memory and due to pre loaded applications free left space was less and such preloaded applications could not be deleted.

Complainant felt cheated due to unfair trade practice of OP2 as OP1 had wrongly told about 4GB memory at the time of purchase of the said mobile, so sent legal notices to all OPs on 14/11/2014 for refund of cost of mobile with harassment, but neither cost was refunded nor replied by OPs as per Ex CW1/4 with postal receipts as Ex CW1/5. Thereafter complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of the cost of mobile Rs 18,700/- with Rs one lakh as harassment cost and litigation charges Rs 11,000/-

After receiving notices, OP2 submitted joint written statement on behalf of OP1 and 3. All the facts and alleged allegations in complaints were denied as wrong and incorrect. It was submitted that complainant had purchased the said mobile in a sealed packet on 16/03/2014 and OP3/seller had clearly explained about each and every features of the said mobile. Only after being satisfied, complainant purchased the mobile.  So, it was submitted that there was neither any deficiency in sale and service by their authorized OP1 and 3 or any unfair trade practice ever was adopted. It was admitted by OP2 that the mobile had some problem of hanging twice after using for some days which was due to software and that too was rectified and mobile was returned on the same day. It was also stated that their products were of world fame and contains all the detail information in their user manual besides carries one year standard warranty. OP2 had submitted all the detail information about the mobile through user manual which was with the complainant still the same had been annexed as OPW1/B.

OP2 had accepted that mobile had hang problem was due to over loading of applications by complainant which were beyond the capacity of mobile. The said mobile had 1GB RAM which was a starting level in their mobile and had flash memory up to 4GB. This could be expended to 32 GB by using micro SD card, but complainant had not followed the user manual properly and alleged unfair trade practice of OPs which was totally wrong and denied.  As the said mobile had no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service provided by OP1 and 3, so this complaint may be dismissed.  

Complainant filed his rejoinder to joint written statement with evidence on affidavit where he stated on affidavit as his mobile was sold by OP3 as defective product and had given all the wrong information regarding the mobile. Complainant had annexed his evidences as Ex.CW1/7 and 8 giving detailed specifications about his mobile.

The evidences were also submitted for OP1 and 2 jointly through Mr Priyank Chauhan working as officer with OP2 who affirmed on affidavit supported by their annexure A and B which pertains to authorization to depose before the Forum and detail features of the mobile.  It was submitted that complainant had purchased Sony Xperia C having weight 153 gm, 5 inch TFT display with 8 megapixal fast capture camera and auto focus zoom. It was stated that mobile had 1GB RAM and flash memory up to 4GB. The memory could be increased to 32 GB after putting micro SD card. It was also stated that down load and takeaways was 1MB besides other standard feature of mobile having 1GB RAM.

OP3 also submitted their evidence on affidavit separately through Mr Ravinder Singh, Manager with OP3/ David Sales and Solutions and affirmed that all the facts and denial had been submitted in their written statement and were true and correct. The said mobile was purchased by the complainant after choosing the best product and OP3 had explained all the features in detail at the time of purchase.OP3 also stated that the mobile was purchased in the name of “Sundry Debtors (credit cards) and the present complainant was a proprietor of the firm as OP3.  So, this complaint was not maintainable before this Forum.  

Arguments were heard from both the parties, file perused and order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was evident that the complainant had purchased his mobile from OP3.

The complainant had submitted evidences on affidavit as Ex CW1/7 pertaining to Xperia C without its specification and Ex CW1/8 pertaining to “Xperia C5 Ultra Dual SIM smart phone with 6 inch display and Xperia M5 Dual Specifications Dual SIM smart phone with 5 inch display. There was no similarity of features found between Xperia C with other models features which complainant had submitted on affidavit.  

Before coming to the conclusion, we have gone through the meaning of RAM and ROM.

RAM- Random Access Memory (RAM) is the memory where the software resides while it is running along with the data it is using. RAM is used by both Operating System and software. It is faster memory compared to permanent storage which includes SD card internal and external storage. The Apps that were downloaded and installed are first loaded in the RAM and then executed. As the complainant is using with a very low power RAM, i.e. of 1GB which is comparatively not sufficient to hold many Apps and it’s functioning, thereby in itself making mobile phone working slow and may hang occasionally. 

 

ROM- Read Only Memory (ROM) is the low level programming that contains the operating system and basic applications to make your phone work. The memory type mostly used by mobile companies is Flash Memory or technically EEPROM (electrically erasable and programmable read only memory). There are some preinstalled apps in this memory by the Manufacturers in the Android Operating system which is why the user don’t get full internal memory as advertised on the box and this a very common practice and known by many users.

Thus it is clear that the said mobile had 1GB power and complainant being a practicing lawyer, should had chosen higher GB featured mobile if he had intended to download many applications and other features in his mobile. As far as hang problem were occurring, it was due to 1GB and product had no manufacturing defect. So, there was no relation with Flash Memory of 4GB as asked by complainant in his complaint. It is because mentioned flash memory (4GB) cannot be available in full terms without pre-installed applications by the manufacturer.  

 

Thus, there was no evidence from complainant to prove that the said mobile was sold as defective mobile or unfair trade practice was adopted by OP3 during purchase of mobile. We do not find any liability of OP3/seller and OP2 as the manufacturer. As far as service centre liability is concerned, we have gone through the job sheets submitted by complainant which showed that hang problem in the said mobile was rectified and the mobile was returned on the same day. No service charges were taken as mobile was in warranty tenure.

 

Hence, there was no deficiency in the service provided by OP1. Complainant has failed in proving deficiency of OPs. We come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and that being so the complaint deserves to be dismissed without any cost to order.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Act and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari –Member                                                                   Mrs  Harpreet Kaur  - Member                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                         

                                                       Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                                       President