Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/376/2023

ALAUKIK RATTAN SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SONY INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK ARORA ADVOCATE

06 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/376/2023
Date of Institution	:	3/8/2023
Date of Decision	:	6/12/2024

 

 

1. Alaukik Rattan Sharma @ Alok Sharma aged about 27 years son of Late Shri Anmol Rattan Sharma resident of House No.2417, Phase XI, Mohali.

2. Smt. Sunita Sharma aged 61 years wife of late Shri Anmol Rattan Sharma resident of House No.2417, Phase XI, Mohali.

..Complainants

Versus

 

1. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd, Registered office A-18, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delh-110044 through its Managing Director.

2. M/s Goel Bros., SCO 307, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its proprietor.

3. M/s Technocare, Sony Authorized Service Centre, SCO 128-129, Sector 34-A, Candigarh 160022 through Authorized Personal.

..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Deepak Arora, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Vikrant Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainants had purchased a Sony Play Station 5 for sum of Rs.64,650/- from OP No.2 dated 10.2.2023 (Annexure C-1). The OPs issued warranty valid upto April, 2024 which included warranty update, which is thus still valid and continues (Annexure C-2). The said PS STANDARD GOWR BUNDLE (PSS HARDWARE), developed problems from very beginning. In April 2023, the complainants had to approach the OPs for rectification of the errors in CONSOLE. Many emails were sent for non-functioning of the Console properly but till date the OPs have neither made refund of amount paid nor the console is replaced (Annexure C-4). The product is still lying with the service centre and it is tempered, by them. The console itself used to crash whether playing games online or offline. Earlier once the product was replaced but even the replaced console was defective in same manner. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their reply and stated that the complainant approached the service centre of OPs on 13.04.2023 raising an issue with the "Defect in the PSS Hardware". The complainant is alleging that while playing certain games it is getting stuck and facing glitches and games are crashing. In order to understand the alleged issue raised by the complainant, the service centre took the PlayStation from the complainant and thoroughly inspected the device. The service centre observed that while playing the games, there was no issue appearing in the PlayStation. The PlayStation was working normally as per its specification. The service centre also recorded the video while playing the games and throughout, no issue was appearing in the PlayStation. It is further stated that no material evidence has been placed on record by the complainant which says that the said PlayStation in question was having some inherent defect. The complainant has also not furnished any document which establishes the fact that the said PlayStation in question was having some manufacturing defect. The complainant failed to furnish any technical evidence to support his case. In the absence of any strong proof, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OPs.
3.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     It is an admitted fact and also evident from Annexure C-1, the copy of the invoice that the complainant purchased the play station in question on 10.2.2023 from OP No.2 of the brand of OP No.1, after spending an amount of Rs.64,560/-.
7.     The grouse of the complainant is that within warranty period the product in question was not giving proper services and therefore, in one month only, the complainant approached to the OPs for rectification of the error in console. As of now despite present litigation, neither the console has been handed over to the complainant, nor the refund of the amount has been paid. Hence, the complainant has alleged deficiency in services.
8.     As per OPs the product was having warranty of one year. In the present case the complainant faced problem within warranty period, but no proper solution to the problem of the complainant was given under the warranty. As per the OPs in order to understand the alleged issue raised by the complainant to the service centre, OP No.3 took play station in its custody for thorough inspection and observed that there was no issue appearing in the play station and the same is working normally and as per its specification. On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record various error report Annexure C-3 alongwith various emails sent to the OPs for rectification of the error, but the complainant was not satisfied by the OPs giving a proper follow-up/service to make the console/play station defect free.
9.     In our opinion, the complainant invested his hard-earned money trusting the brand, but inactive approach of OPs forced the complainant to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. The act of OPs for keeping the product in their custody and non-refunding the amount proves deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice. Notably, during the oral arguments, it was clarified by the OPs that the product in question is no more manufactured now. Hence, we feel it will be apt to pass an order to refund. 
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

1. To refund amount of ₹64,560/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of this complaint onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

11.     This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

6/12/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member