Haryana

Panchkula

CC/50/2016

HUNER KUMAR MITTAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

DEEPAK SHARMA

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                                          

Consumer Complaint No	:	50 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	02.03.2016
Date of Decision	:	08.08.2016

                                                                                            

Huner Kumar Mittal, # 618, Sector-21, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, 3^rd floor, Adarsh Mall, Plot No.50, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh-160002.
2. M/s Ambika Enterprises through its Manager, SCO 42, Sector-11, Panchkula.
3. M/s Ultimate Services, Showroom No.55, Sector-5, Swastik Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula-134109.

 

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv., for the complainant.

              Mr.Vikrant Sharma, Adv., for the OPs.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal,  President)

 

1. Huner Kumar-complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that he purchased a Sony Smartphone (Model No.D6502 Xperia Z2/Black Sr. No.352494062744478) on 14.09.2015 for a sum of Rs.25,500/- vide bill Annexure C-1 from the Op No.2. After purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem of hanging and also software problem as some applications were not properly functioning. The complainant approached the Op No.3 i.e. authorized service center for repair who repaired the same and application problem was rectified (Annexure C-3) but the actual problem was hanging. After few days, the mobile again started hanging and the complainant approached the Op No.3 who issued job sheet dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure C-2) and also mentioned that “as per customer hanging problem but no trouble found software upgrade done” but the problem still persisted. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Ops to replace the mobile phone or rectify the problem of hanging at the earliest as he was suffering in business due to non working of the mobile phone but to no avail. The complainant contacted many times on toll free number of Op No.1 but he told to contact at the nearest service center. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 is a Company incorporated under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. It is submitted that the Op No.3 is the authorized service center of Op No.1 and the Op No.2 is the authorized dealer of Op No.1. It is submitted that the complainant purchased one Sony Xperia Z2/D6502 with IMEI No.352494062744478 for Rs.25,500/- on 14.09.2015 from OP No.2 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications alongwith the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the mobile. It is submitted that Op No.1 provided a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and could not held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of warranty. The relevant terms of warranty provided by the Op No.1 is as under:-

“Subject to the conditions of this limited warranty, Sony warrants this product to be free from defects in design, material and workmanship at the time of original purchase by a Consumer, and for a subsequent period of One (1) year, which is the warranty period.”………

“If, during the warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship, the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein.”

It is submitted that the clause 3 of the terms of warranty provided by the OP No.1 clearly states that:-

“This warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal and customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the Product. Nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid.”

It is submitted that the complainant approached the Op No.3 on 18.01.2016 with problem of application problem and the OP No.3 after inspecting the handset observed that there was no issue with the handset, only software was required to be updated which was updated and the mobile phone was delivered to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant again approached the Op No.3 on 01.02.2016 with the problem of hanging. The Op No.3 after inspection observed that the handset was working normally as per its designed specification. After thorough inspection, the OP No.3 found no trouble with the mobile phone and the same was delivered to him after updating software. It is submitted that the Op No.1 sent a letter dated 23.03.2016 to the complainant in which it was mentioned that as per work order No.W116020101814 dated 01.02.2016 no trouble was found with the handset. If the complainant was facing any issue with the handset, he could visit the nearest service center and get the mobile phone inspected for appropriate solution but the complainant never respond despite issuing reminder also. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3. The complainant tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. It is evident from the retail invoice (Annexure C-1) dated 14.09.2015, the complainant purchased Sony Xperia Z2/Black mobile phone model D6502, IMEI No. 352494062744478 dated 14.09.2015 for a sum of Rs.25,500/-. But the hand set started giving problem after few days of its purchase and was taken to the service center i.e Op No.3 on 18.01.2016 alleging a problem of hanging and software problem as some applications were not properly functioning and the Op No.3 updated the software with remarks “Application problem software upgrade done” (Annexure C-3). Thereafter, the complainant again approached the Op No.3 with the problem of hanging vide job sheet dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure C-2) and the Op No.3 again updated the software. The complainant claimed that the Ops failed to rectify the defects in the mobile hand set as against it, the Op No.3 maintained that the mobile was inspected and software was upgraded. The Ops in their written statement has taken the plea that there was no problem of hanging in the mobile phone. However, the Ops have not produced any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence in support of this contention. In the absence of any documentary proof that facts, pleading of the Ops are hollow and devoid of any merit. The self serving affidavit of Ops is not sufficient to prove the said fact.
6. Evidently the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself but not for moving the service center and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. Even the defects in the mobile phone after few days of its purchase, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. The complainant has been deprived of possession of the mobile handset. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
7. In the light of above observations, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops are found deficient in not giving proper services to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Ops and the same is allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-
   1. To refund of Rs.25,500/- being the cost of the mobile hand set in question to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 14.09.2015 till realization. The complainant shall return the handset alongwith its accessories to the Ops.
   2. To pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, physical harassment.
   3. To pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
8. This order shall be complied with by the Ops jointly and severely within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

08.08.2016     S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER            MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT