Delhi

East Delhi

CC/645/2016

Sachin KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

IMMORTAL SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 645/16

 

Shri Sachin Kumar

RZ-77B, Gali No. 10B, Jain Park,

D.K. Mohan Garden, West Delhi- 110059                                                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. Immortal Services (Sony Service Center)

1/15 1^st Floor, Lalita Park,

Opposite Metro Pillar no. 26,

Lakshmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092

 

2. Believe Studio (From Handset Purchases)

Shop  No.1, MGF Mega City Mall,

MG Road, Gurgaon, Haryana

 

3. Managing Director

M/s Sony India (Original Manufacturer)

A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, New Delhi, Delhi- 110044                                                                …Opposite parties

 

Date of Institution: 17.12.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 20.03.2019

Judgement Passed on: 03.04.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by the complainant,                      Shri Sachin Kumar against Immortal Services (Sony Service Centre), OP-1;  Believe Studio, (Retailer), OP-2; Managing Director , M/s Sony India (Manufacturer),   OP-3.

            Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that on 29.09.2016, the complainant purchased Sony Handset model Sony XA Black (IMEI- 358129073986528 from OP-2. On 12.10.2016, the complainant observed some white line which used to disappear after 5 minutes, for which the handset was submitted on 24.10.2016 with OP-1, service center, where the complainant was informed that the handset was bent towards the battery which could be possible due to keeping the handset in the pocket of jeans/ trouser. On 26.10.2016, the complainant received the call from OP-1, where he was informed that the handset was physically damaged and the screen needed replacement for which a quotation of Rs. 3,800/- as cost of the screen and Rs. 115 for diagnostic charges was given to the complainant. It has been stated that the handset was still under warranty so the complainant collected the handset and escalated the issue with Sony Call Center where he was asked to submit the handset again and share the job sheet number, which was done on 29.10.2016.

On 21.11.2016, the complainant received a call where he was informed that the complainant had to pay for the repairs and since then the complainant had not collected the handset and it was lying at the service center. Legal notice dated 22.11.2016 was sent to OP which was neither replied nor complied with. The complainant has prayed for the direction to OPs to refund the cost of the handset i.e. Rs. 17,990/- and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.

            Retail invoice dated 29.09.2016, service job sheet dated 25.10.2016, cash memo dated 26.10.2016 alongwith estimate, e-mails exchanged between the complainant and support.sony.mobile.com alongwith job sheet dated 12.11.2016 and photographs of the handset with the complaint.

            Reply was filed on behalf of OP-1, 2 and 3 upon service of the summons in the present complaint, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as: the handset was out of warranty, the complainant was liable to pay for repairs as per warranty terms and conditions. It was submitted that a limited warranty of one year from the date of original purchase was provided and the handset was brought to the service center on 25.10.2016 with the problem of “lines on display”. Upon inspection, it was observed that the handset was brought in a physically damaged condition as it was bent due to rough usage/ handling. The complainant was given estimated cost of repair on 12.11.2016 which was rejected by the complainant. Fact that the complainant did not collect the handset was admitted. It was submitted that the complainant was promptly attended as and when he approached the OP, thus, no deficiency in services could be attributed on their part. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

            Board Resolution dated 07.02.2014, retail invoice, terms and conditions and photographs of the handset in question have been annexed with their reply.

 Shri. Sachin Kumar, the complainant got himself examined and has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint and has relied on the annexure annexed with it. However, OPs did not file their evidence by way of affidavit in support of their submissions made in their reply despite several opportunities ultimately their right to file evidence was closed.

We have perused the material placed on record and have heard the submission on behalf of complainant, it has been stated by the complainant that OP did not repair his handset, which was under warranty rather an estimate of Rs. 3,812.36 was given for the replacement of the screen. The date of purchase of the handset was 26.09.2016 and the date of first job sheet is 25.10.2016 which is less than one month from the date of purchase. Further, the complainant has stated that he was informed by OP-1 that due to keeping the phone in the pocket of jeans/ trouser there was a bent in the handset. The reasoning given by OP-1 is highly improbable and cannot be believed as handsets manufactured by OP-3, which is a company of repute are considered to be sturdy. This implies that it was a lame excuse given by OP-1 to make complainant pay for the repairs which was within the warranty. However, OPs did not file their evidence by way of affidavit, their submissions remain disproved. This act/ omission of OP-1 definitely amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services.  

Hence, we direct OP-1 to repair the handset of the complainant without any charges and give an extended warranty of 9 months from the date the repaired handset is handed over to the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is also awarded in the favour of complainant to be paid by  OP-1, as they did not repair the handset which was within warranty period.

This order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order else compensation of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

    

   (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                        (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                                                                             Member                                                                                                       Member    

                                                    (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                           President