Managing Director of Sony India pvt. V/S Sunil Sharma Adv. - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/36

Sunil Sharma Adv. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director of Sony India pvt. - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

07 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/15/36 of 9.2.2015

Decided on: 7.12.2015

Sunil Sharma, Advocate Chamber No.514, Yadwindra Complex, District Courts, Patiala.

…………...Complainant

Versus

M/s Sony India Pvt.Ltd., Registered Office: A-31,Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

…………….Op

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

Sh.D.R.Arora, President

Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt.Sonia Bansal, Member

Present:

For the complainant: In person

For Op: Sh.Dhiraj Puri, Advocate

ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased a Sony Play Station ‘3’500MB model known as PS 3 for Rs.21661/- vide invoice No.R-3064 dated 6.11.2013.The Op is also a service provider alongwith PS3 called “Playstation Network” known as PSN and “Sony Entertainment Network” known as SEN without which PS3 is rendered as useless video CD player. The complainant has got no complaint relating to the product or its working and it relates to the services provided by the Op
The services known as PSN and SEN feature the following benefits: (a) That PSN account enables a user to play on line multiplayer games through PS3 gaming system of the Op. The consumer is unable to play an online multiplayer video game without registering and signing into PSN account (b) SEN account is a different service which enables a user to purchase digital version of games through the site of the Op i.e. http://store,sonyentertainmentwork.com or even through the store application available for the gaming console itself, which can only be played on PS3 gaming console and cannot be down loaded or played on any other digital device or computer.
It is further averred by the complainant that PSN including gaming console is purchased for consideration which promises its consumers the services without which PS3 is useless. SEN is not purchased as it is a digital store of the Op but the complainant purchased many games for consideration through SEN and therefore, the complainant became a consumer for the said services too. PSN services cannot be called the same services as that of SEN store service in as much as PSN is purchased alongwith hardware of gaming console while SEN is optional for a purchaser. PSN is a must service to enjoy the benefits of PS3 while SEN is optional as the consumer can opt to buy physical disc drives of the games instead of buying the same through digital store.
It is further averred by the complainant that he had created an account of PSN & SEN with user ID:sunil9463630001, which is linked to his e-mail ID “advsunilsharma@yahoo.com” so as to purchase and play games online and he purchased the games for the price as per the description given below: (a) God of War, (b) God of War II,(c) God of War:Chains of Olympus (d) God of War: Ghost of Sparta for consideration of Rs.1978/- credited in the account of SEN on the day of purchase i.e. 9.11.2013. Since the purchase was made online, no invoice was issued and therefore, the credit card statement shows the transfer of the amount in the account of the Op and (e) Fifa 15 for a sum of Rs.2799/- ( the figure is not clearly visible) on 23.9.2014 with the help of the credit card. The total sale consideration including the two games and of the gaming console comes to Rs.26438/-.
It is further averred that the games are purchased on payment of one time fee and after which the same game can be down loaded into two separate gaming consoles by activating them through the PSN ID. The terms and conditions shown on the website of the Op can be seen through the video CD Annexure A-4 as no printout option is available. Annexure A-4.2 shows the website of the Op qua the terms for the purchase of the game.
It is further averred that for the purchase of the games a credit card was required, which was in the name of the wife of the complainant which was used for the purchase of the games and for which gaming console stored the detail of the credit card for future use of the games so that the consumer may not be required to fill up the information time and again.
In the month of November,2014 a sum of Rs.1899/- was debited from the credit card of the complainant and the complainant received the SMS in this regard from the HDFC bank through his mobile phone. On enquiry made by the complainant from the HDFC Banking Customer support, it was revealed that the said sum was debited from his account for the purchase of a video game through SEN account. The complainant had not purchased any such game and therefore, the dispute claim was registered by the complainant with HDFC Bank, who issued the credit card regarding the unauthorized use of his credit card by SEN. The said bank got the dispute investigated and resultantly the amount debited from his account was credited into his account as the transaction was found to be unauthorized on account of several procedural lapses.
It is further averred that thereafter the Op suspended the SEN account of the complainant for non- payment of the game charges without affording any opportunity or giving any notice to the complainant. Simultaneously PSN account of the complainant was also suspended by the Op, who has nothing to do with the purchase of the games. Because of the two accounts having been suspended by the Op, the complainant was unable to enjoy the games, which he actually purchased from SEN account as he is unable to sign-in to his PSN account. The video showing the suspension /ban error and inability to access the video game is said to be annexure A-4.1 present in the CD annexure A-4.The Op is not only guilty of suspending the account of the complainant without opportunity but it is also guilty of terminating the services of the games. The complainant contacted the Op’s customer support for the resolution of the issue through telephonic calls and e-mails but the Op failed to restore the account and to provide the services. The printout copy of the e-mail conversation consisting of 10-e-mails is said to be Annexures A-5 to A-14. The customer support of the Op had been asking the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.1899/- for the purchase of the two video games called “Pro Evolution Soccer 2015” which the complainant never purchased, for the restoration of the PSN services. It is alleged by the complainant that the Op is entitled to claim any amount recoverable from the complainant through a process of recovery by proving the transaction to be genuine but the suspension of the services for the earlier purchases made for consideration is said to be not justified. The Op is entitled to suspend the account of the complainant for making a further use of the services known as SEN with a reasonable claim dispute to be heard by the authorized person but the suspension of PSN account is arbitrary and unwarranted.
It is also alleged by the complainant that video game series of God of War, contain contents of nudity and sex , in respect of which a criminal complaint under Section 292, 293 IPC and Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of the Women ( Prohibition ) Act, 1986 and Sections 67,67A and 67C of the Information Technology Act ,2000 has been filed against the Op in the court of the JMIC,Patiala. Similarly, it is alleged by the complainant that on receipt of the payment, the Op does not issue any VAT paid invoice and thus evaded the taxes payable to the Govt. and this causes the harassment to the consumers, who have been relying upon the credit card statements. The Op is also said to be guilty of misusing the information regarding the credit card of the complainant stored by them without prior permission of the complainant and the said acts of the Op are said to be unfair trade practice and restricted trade practice. On account of the failure on the part of the Op to restore his account except on payment of Rs.1899/- is said to have caused the mental harassment to the complainant. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to restore the services of the account of the complainant or in the alternative to refund the entire payment of Rs.26438/-; to provide him a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment suffered by him on account of the unfair trade practice on the part of the Op.
Initially the Op was proceeded exparte but on an application moved by the Op seeking permission to file the written version, the complainant expressed no objection and accordingly the Op was allowed to contest the complaint by way of filing the written version.
In the written version filed by the Op, it is the plea taken up by it that apart from being engaged in the business of sales and distribution of various types of electronic and information technology products like LCD, LED television, DVD, player, music system, mobile phones, the Op is also selling its gaming console under the sub brand ‘Play Station.’ Play Station is a hardware gaming console and the Op is not responsible for creation of online service of games like PSN or SEN. It is denied by the Op that at the time of the purchase of play station hardware, the cost there of includes the alleged cost of PSN or SEN service. It is denied that play station hardware can only be used by running the games down loaded from these on line services. Play station is merely a device for running games either down loaded online or the gaming CDs purchased from market.
It is further the plea taken up by the Op that on line service like PSN or SEN is rendered by a separate legal entity and the Op cannot be held accountable for any actions of the said entity. Neither the complainant paid any consideration to the Op nor the alleged PSN or SEN on line services were ever provided by the Op to the complainant. A perusal of the invoice would clearly show that the Op has not charged any amount from the complainant for any thing but for the play station hardware/unit. It is also the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant has admitted in para no.1 of the complaint that he has not arrayed the seller of the play station as there is no grievance pertaining to the hardware/unit and in that way the complainant has got no grievance about the play station/hardware/ gaming console which is being sold by the Op. If the seller is not made a party on the ground that he has not allegedly sold the PSN or SEN online services, then it is difficult to understand as to on what basis the Op has been dragged into the litigation. The Op is not a necessary party. Ultimately, it is alleged that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost under Section 26 of the Act.
In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit, Ex.CB his another sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C21 and closed his evidence.
On the other hand, on behalf of the Op , it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Priyank Chauhan, authorized signatory of the Op alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person, the learned counsel for the Op and gone through the evidence on record.
Ex.C1 is the tax/retail invoice dated 6^th November,2013 with regard to the complainant Sunil Sharma having purchased one Sony PS 500GB SLIM for Rs.21,66/- from ZUPITEX (India) Pvt.Limited against order No.1394203545 and sub order No.1884115100.
It is the positive plea taken up by the complainant that PSN is a must service to enjoy the benefit of PS3 gaming console while SEN is optional as consumer can opt to by physical disc drives of games to play instead of buying its digital version on SEN store. It is also the positive plea taken up by the complainant that he created an account with PSN and SEN with user ID:sunil9463630001 linked to his e-mail ID:
Similarly, it is the positive plea taken up by the complainant that for the aforesaid purchases a sum of Rs.1978/- was transferred in the name of SEN, on the day of 9.11.2013 and as the purchase was digital no copy of invoice was issued by the Op and therefore, the credit card statement showing the transfer of amount is reflected in the annexure A2, which is now a part of evidence as Ex.C2.Ex.C2 is the copy of statement dated 12.11.2013 in respect of card No.4617xxxx0269xxxx in respect of Anita Makkar showing the e-mail ID as
It is also the plea taken up by the complainant that the games were purchased with one time fee after which the same games can be down loaded into two separate gaming consoles by activating them through the PSN Id. The terms and conditions shown on the web site of the Op can only be seen through a video as no print option is available on those terms. A video CD as produced in evidence is Ex.C4 and the complainant has produced on record the transcription of terms of the purchase of the games contained in the CD, which is given in the following terms: “Download of this product is subject to the Sony Entertainment Network Terms of Service/User Agreement and any specific additional conditions applying to this product. If you do not wish to accept these terms, do not download this product. See terms of service for more important information.