Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/848

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sony Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Compl.in person

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                 C.C.No:848 of 11.12.2014

                                                                    Date of Decision:30.04.2015

Satish Kumar, aged 33 years, son of Sh.Om Parkash, resident of House No.174, Laxmi Garden, Near Starway High School, ITI Area, Yamuna Nagar, presently at Gali No.8, Bhagwan Nagar, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana.

Complainant

Versus 

1.M/s Sony Centre, Dee Kay Electrovision, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana through its Proprietor.

2.M/s Sony Mobile Communications(India) Private Limited, A-31, Second Floor, Mohan Co.Operative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its Proprietor/Manager.

3.M/s Aroma Instant Service Centre, SCO No.39-G, L.G.F.Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Market, Opposite Police, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Manager.

                   Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

 

 

Present:      Complainant Sh.Satish Kumar in person.

                   Ms.Veena Gulati, Adv, for Ops.

                 

                          ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.               Complainant Sh.Satish Kumar, has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein-after referred to as ‘the Act’) against M/s Sony Centre, Dee Kay Electrovision, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana through its Proprietor and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them either to replace the mobile with new one or to pay its value of Rs.15,600/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of its purchase till actual payment besides to make payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Sony mobile C-2104 Xperia L/White on 12.10.2013 vide cash memo No.RI-3768 EMI NO.356005053699449 for Rs.15,600/- from OP1 and OP2 is the manufacturer of the said mobile and OP3 is the service centre of OP2. The aforesaid mobile of its own restarted, auto off, heat up and hanging up etc., and to this effect, the complainant apprised the OP3, who took the mobile from the complainant for removing the defects complained and asked the complainant to collect the same after a week. After a week, the complainant collected the mobile from the OP3 and when the complainant used the said mobile, it gives the same problems. Thereafter, on 6.5.2014, the complainant again approached the OP3 and apprised that the aforesaid mobile gives the same problems and OP3 took the mobile from the complainant for repair and asked the complainant to collect the mobile after three days and accordingly, after three days, the complainant went to collect his mobile from OP3. While giving delivery of the said mobile, the OP3 assured the complainant that the mobile is O.K. and it is a defect free. Thereafter, on 20.5.2014 and again on 11.6.2014, the complainant again approached the OP3 and apprised that the aforesaid mobile gives the same problems. The OP3 again took the mobile from the complainant for repair and asked to collect his mobile after three days and accordingly, the complainant went to collect his mobile from OP3 but the same problems remains persisted. The complainant also sent email to the OP2 and apprised the defects mentioned above. The OP2 gave reply to the said email to the complainant and directed the complainant to deposit the mobile with the OP3 and accordingly, the complainant deposited his mobile with OP3 but the OP3 did not remove the defects and supplied the mobile in the same condition as it was taken from the complainant. The complainant again approached OP3 on 3.9.2014 and also made request either to move the defects complained of or to supply new set to the complainant, but Ops failed to take the positive steps and returned the aforesaid mobile of the complainant. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 8.9.2014 through his counsel Sh.Mohinder Singh Chauhan, Advocate upon the Ops calling them either to replace the mobile or to pay its value alongwith interest @24% p.a. but despite receipt of the said notice, Ops failed to do anything in this regard. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their counsel Ms.Veena Gulati, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is absolutely devoid of any cause of action whatsoever against the answering Ops and therefore, liable to be dismissed on maintainability. There has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering Ops. The answering OP2 is a company of International repute and sells world class products all across the globe. The products of the answering OP2 are not just best sellers in India but also in several other countries. Due to the quality of the products of the answering OP2, it enjoys an excellent market reputation. Thus, all allegations pertaining to the quality of the subject phone set and services are denied. It is submitted that due to the above mentioned worldwide customer base, the answering OP2 has one of the most remarkable customer service department and attends to client queries and complaints with utmost diligence and the same has been done in the present case also. It is submitted that usage and handling of a product goes a long way in ensuring longevity of the product. In the present case, the complainant has failed to handle the subject phone as per the instructions given in the user manual which enlists certain dos and don’t’s to ensure the maintenance of the subject phone set in good working condition. It is submitted that a standard warranty of one year is provided by the answering OP2 which clearly mentions that exchange or repair within the warranty period shall be in the sole discretion of the answering OP2. Reply on facts, it is submitted that each time, the complainant has approached the answering Ops, he has been provided a quick redressal and his grievance has been resolved. Infact, as per the terms of warranty, the handset had been repaired free of costs by the answering Ops each time. It is submitted that each time, the complainant has approached the answering OP with a new grievance and the same has been duly addressed by the answering Ops. It is denied that the answering Ops failed to address the grievances in the mobile phone. Further, it is submitted that the grievance of the complainant has been redressed and the answering OP2 had vide letter dated 14.1.2015 had already offered an exchange of the mobile phone with the same set or refund of the purchase value. Further, it is submitted that since the answering Ops have already made the subject offer as per the prayer clause of the complaint of the complainant nothing survives in the complaint. Further, it is submitted that the complainant has already been offered a refund and a replacement but he has refused to accept the same. The offer to the complainant as communicated vide letter dated 14.1.2015 is still valid. The answering Ops who have offered the best services to the complainant are not entitled to make any payment to the complainant and he is not entitled to any interest from the answering Ops. At the end, denying any deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs, answering OPs made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint and further, the complainant has placed on record the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12.

5.                On the other hand, in order to rebut the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the OPs adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Priyank Chauhan, authorized representative of OP2, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by Ops and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the OPs has proved on record documents Ex.OPW1/1 and OPW1/2.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents on record very carefully.

7.                Perusal of the written reply of the Ops reveals that in para no.3 on reply on merits, it has been submitted that each time, when the complainant had approached with the Ops, he had been provided a quick redressal and his grievance had been resolved. Infact, as per the terms of warranty, the handset had been repaired free of costs by the Ops each time. Further, in reply to contents of para no.8, it has been mentioned that the grievance of the complainant had been redressed and the OP2 had vide letter dated 14.1.2015 had already offered an exchange of the mobile phone with the same set or refund of the purchase value.

8.                So, it appears from the written reply of the Ops that Ops had already admitted the claim of the complainant.

9.             In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we direct OPs to replace the mobile handset of the complainant i.e. Sony Mobile C-2104 Xperia L/White with new one of the same make and model without any costs or in the alternative, to make refund of the entire price of the mobile in question to the complainant. Further, Ops are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed as Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                  (Babita)                 (R.L. Ahuja)

                   Member                   President

Announced in Open Forum

on 30/04/2015

GurpreetSharma