BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.418 of 2016

Date of Instt. 26.09.2016

Date of Decision: 24.04.2018

Harsimar Singh S/o S. Sarbjit Singh resident of NM218, Mohalla Karar Khan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sony India, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Principal Officer.

2. M/s Service Point, 233/1 SUS Nagar, Near Preet Hotel, Jalandhar, through its Manager/Principal Officer.

3. M/s Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Manager/Principal Officer.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Manoj Dhamija, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Robin Budhiraja, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 to 3.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased one mobile set Sony Xperia Z3+ handset Model No.E6553, IMEI No.359057063823642 from OP No.3, for a sum of Rs.24,000/- on 02.07.2016. The complainant was assured for total replacement of the mobile set in case of any problem or dis-satisfaction within seven days of purchase. On 04.07.2016, when the complainant arranged the nano sim and inserted in the set, to start using the phone, he was shocked to discover that the mobile started showing several manufacturing defects related to faulty speaker. He found that calling ringtone volume was too low to be heard even at its maximum capacity. The complainant approached OP No.3 with the above said problems, who further referred him to authorized service centre of Sony i.e. OP No.2, then son of the complainant visited the service centre. The representatives/executives at Service Centre after checking the fault in the mobile loaded it with higher version android. But the problem was still persisting, so he told that it is the software problem and will be solved automatically after some time. But, the problem still remained, so he again visited the service centre on Friday i.e. 08.07.2016. This time they totally disagreed with the problem and stated that this model is provided with this maximum ring volume and hence nothing could be done at their end. Then son of the complainant returned back and talked to Xperia Helpline, who advised him to go to service centre again and get the software updated. So, he again visited the service centre on Saturday i.e. 09.07.2016 for getting the mobile repaired, but all in vain. Then the son of the complainant insisted for DOA for replacement, but Mr. Kamal Arora attending him got angry and misbehaved the son of the complainant and thereafter, the son of the complainant came back and contacted Xperia helpline and the attending person Mr. Sumit advised to him to just submit the set and complained the Sony company by email about the harassment and misbehaviour. So, the son of the complainant again visited service centre and submitted the set with great difficulty, who issued the work order No.W116070903961 for the symptom “loudspeaker issue”.

2. That on 10.07.2016 the complainant wrote an email related to the defective mobile to Sony India mentioned the detailed defect in the set and requested to issue 'Defect on Arrival' certificate and issue a new set, but the complainant received a phone call stating that the phone set is not faulty and the complaint of low volume ring tone cannot be amended/increased more than it is provided as such by the company. Hence, it cannot be declared DOA. Further, the representative from Sony helpline number was contacted who in addition to aforementioned things rudely stated to the complainant that he must have bought the set after going through all the provided features. The complainant clarified that the mobile sets are shown sealed box packed at time of purchase and features of the set are available on printings on the packing box. The customers are shown only dummies or demo sets in market with no permission to insert sim to check the phone and no one can ever imagine that such a small requisite of working speaker is not available with such a reputed brand like Sony and further the company Sony has not mentioned its low speaker volume information on the packing box and if Sony admits the volume of speaker is sufficient and not defective and further if it is not mentioned on the box, then its case of cheating or betrayal with the customer. The complainant again wrote another email to Sony stating about the manufacturing defect and misbehaviour of the service centre staff on 12.07.2016. No satisfactory response was given by the Sony India. The Sony India wrote a mail to the complainant that the case has been discussed with the management and they would be unable to comply with the request to exchange the handset and further requested the complainant to collect the handset from service centre and adding to the agony of the complainant they falsely assured about that the quality and reliability of our product and services. Had Sony been so reliable, they would have taken the matter seriously and would have changed the defective set at the earliest.

3. That the complainant suffered losses at personal and professional fronts due to absence of android mobile set. The complainant had purchased an android mobile set in accordance of his needs and suitability, only after hearing and relying upon the name of the Sony brand, the complainant had got the above said mobile set, but now he feels that purchasing the above said mobile set was the biggest mistake of his life. The act and conduct of the OPs has resulted loss to the complainant and has further caused mental tension and agony to him. The act of the OPs tantamount to unfair trade practice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to give a new mobile set of similar value to the complainant and OPs be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing compliant, till realization and be also directed to pay cost of litigation.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly all the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that as per the records of the Company, the complainant purchased one Sony Xperia Z3+E6553 with IMEI No.359057063823642, for Rs.24,000/-, on 02.07.2016 from OP No.3, after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications along with the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the aforesaid mobile and further averred that the OP No.1 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the date of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and further alleged that after purchasing the said handset, the complainant approached to OP No.2 on 09.07.2016 and raised an issue with the loudspeaker of the aforesaid mobile handset. The OP No.2 without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the handset, upon through inspection, it was found that the handset has no issue at all rather the same was working normally and as per its specification and further alleged that the complainant was duly informed that the handset was working properly and there was no such issue with the same and further complainant was informed to collect the subjected handset from OP No.2, but despite repeated reminders, the complainant did not collect the handset from the OP No.2. Even no material evidence has been placed on record by the complainant which establishes the fact that the handset in question was having some inherent defect. The OP No.2 has thoroughly inspected the handset and found no trouble. In the absence of any strong proof, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On merits, the purchase of the mobile phone by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the mobile phone was submitted with OP No.2 i.e. Service Centre, but the same was found properly working and regarding that information was given to the complainant to collect the same, but till today, the complainant has not collect the same and further the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith documents Ex.OP/1 and Ex.OP/2 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. After considering the over all circumstances as came before us through this complaint and reveals that the factum in regard to purchase of the mobile handset on 02.07.2016 for Rs.24,000/- from OP No.3, is not in dispute and even it is not in dispute that the mobile phone was having some problem and the same was deposited with the OP No.2 i.e. service centre for repair of the same within a warranty period. Copy of the Invoice is Ex.C-1 and copy of the Job Sheet is Ex.C-2. The mobile phone was deposited with the OP No.2 i.e. Service Centre on 09.07.2016 and till today, the same is lying with the OP No.2 i.e. Service Centre, though the OP alleged that through email, complainant was asked number of times that the handset is working normally as per its specification and there is no defect in the handset and complainant can collect the same, despite that the complainant has not collected the same from the Service Centre i.e. OP No.2, regarding that the complainant has brought on the file emails Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-9, these emails itself established that the mobile phone is still lying with the OP No.2 Service Centre and it is also established that there is some defect in the mobile phone. The said defect in the speaker regarding low voice was reported by the complainant and also alleged that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile phone and demanded replacement of the same model of the mobile phone alongwith compensation and cost.

9. No doubt the OP has alleged in the written reply as well as in the affidavit Ex.OP/A of Ravneet Singh, Service Engineer of the OP No.2, that there is no defect in the mobile. The OP has examined Ravneet Singh, Mobile Service Engineer of the OP No.2 and whose affidavit is Ex.OP/A and in his affidavit, he categorically deposed upon inspection of the said mobile, it was observed that no defect was found in the said mobile set, but on the contrary, the complainant has not examined any expert witness nor got tested the mobile phone from any competent Laboratory, who established that there is any manufacturing defect. So, simply claiming on the basis of oral evidence that there is a manufacturing defect is not sufficient for replacement or return of the mobile, whereas the OP has examined the technical/expert engineer, who checked the mobile himself. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP nor there is any unfair trade practice rather the complainant himself is not ready to get the delivery of the mobile and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

24.04.2018 Member President