Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/336/2018

D V Logananathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sony India Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s R Sethuraman

21 Dec 2022

ORDER

                                        Date of Complaint Filed  : 09.08.2018

                                        Date of Reservation          : 07.12.2022

                                        Date of Order                    : 21.12.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                               : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,              :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,       : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.336/2018

WEDNESDAY, THE 21^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

D.V.Loganathan,

S/o. D.Venkatakrishnan,

No. 14, Selvarangaraja Street,

Little Mount,

Chennai-600 015.                                                                                                                           ... Complainant             

..Vs..

 

1.M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

   No. A-18, Madura Road,

   Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

   New Delhi-110044.

 

2.M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

   Regional Office,

   No.6, Centennial square,

   Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Brown star Hotel,

   Kodambakkam., Chennai - 600 024.

 

3.Chandra vision,

   No. 1, Vedantam Street,

   GST Road, Tambaram Sanatorium,

   Chennai - 600 047.                                                                                                                          ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. R.Sethuraman

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : Exparte

 

On perusal of records, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru.T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the cost of the mobile Bearing No.Sony XPERIA XZ Model:F8332, Rs.39,990/- and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony along with cost of this complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 The Complainant Purchased Two Mobile phones bearing No. F8 332/ XPERIA X2/ DS / BLUE and F3 116/ XPERIA / DS/ LM GLD of the 1^stOpposite Party's centre from the 3^rd Opposite Party Vide Invoice No. 3759 dated 25.03.2017 for the purpose of taking photos of the Interior Portion of the Buildings to do his electrical installation work and panel board works with precision. After two weeks of its purchase, one of the mobile bearing No. F8 332 / XPERIA X2 / OS / BLUE / developed snag and indicate Error and over heat on the display and thereafter the mobile camera turned black. On 22.05.2017 he approached the 1^st Opposite Party's service centre situated at Abirami Plaza, No. 17/4, M.K.Reddy Street, West Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045. and gave the mobile for scrutiny and the technician of the service centre found that some malfunction in the internal system of the mobile and assured him to rectify the malfunction. He handed over the said mobile for rectification of the malfunction and requested the technician to provide a standby mobile till the return of his mobile phone after service. But the technician refused to give any standby mobile and assured that his mobile will be serviced and returned within two days. Whereas his said mobile was returned after the lapse of two weeks i.e., in the first week of June 2017. He operated the mobile in the service centre itself but the camera system fail to operate properly and thereafter the technician sorted out the defect and returned to him. Few days thereafter the said mobile again developed snag and the above mentioned problem re-occurred in addition it the problem of display failure and Head phone failure also occurred. Again he approached to the 1^st Opposite Party's above said service centre on 05.06.2017 and handed over the mobile for service for the second time. It was returned to him after 10 days after sorting out the defects. After few weeks, the said mobile once again developed snag and the camera turned black. Due to his pre-occupation with contract work, he was unable to approach the above said service centre immediately. He sent a Email on 14.11.2017, in which he narrated the defects frequently occurring in the above said mobile and requested the opposite parties 1 to 3 to rectify the defects in such a manner that the defect should not occur again or to replace the above said with a new mobile. In response to his Email the 1^st Opposite Party sent a reply Mail on 15.11.17 and requested him to submit the handset to the service centre. On 16.11.2017 he sent a Email to the them 1 to 3 seeking assurance from respondent for rectification the defects in such a manner that the said defects may not occur again and again. In response to his Email the 1^st Opposite Party sent a reply Email on 17.11.2017 and requested him to submit the handset to the service centre. However the Complainant handed over the handset to the service centre on 28.12.2017 for rectification of defects. On 29.12.2017 he sent a Email to the Respondents 1 to 3 narrating the defects frequently occurring in the above said mobile even after rectification by three times, and requested the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the said mobile with a new mobile, and to provide a standby mobile till the replacement, for which no response from the opposite parties. The said mobile was handed over to the 1^st Opposite Party's Service Centre at Tambaram and it was returned to him only in the second week of January, 2018 after service. Within few days thereafter, the camera once again turned into black and the head phone also developed snag and not audible, and charging of mobile require long time but energy discharges very quickly. Therefore the malfunctioning of the mobile is caused by some manufacturing defect. The handset was handed over to you service centre three times for rectification of the defects. But the mobile developed snag and inoperative within few days after the rectification, every time. Due to manufacturing defect and faulty formation, the said mobile is not working and inoperative. The non-working of the said mobile caused innumerable hardship, monetary loss and mental agony to him. He purchased the said mobile with hope of performing his Electrical installation work and Panel Board work with precision. The Complainant caused Lawyer's Notice dated 26.03.2018 to the opposite parties 1 to 3 and he received a reply letter from the first opposite party for settlement of the matter and gave three options- a) Exchange with Sony XPERIA XZ Model: F8332(without box and accessories) handset in free of Cost. b) Exchange of Sony XPERIA XZ Model: F8332 with a new higher range model for the customer shall be required to pay the current MRP difference between the Model F8332 and customer's required higher model.c) Refund of 80% of Purchase value as per the purchase invoice copy XPERIA XZ Model: F8332. He met one Mr. Velan with regard to the 1^stOpposite Party's letter dated 03.04.2018, but he requested him to contact another person namely Mr. Sivaraman (Area service-in-charge). Accordingly he had contacted him through mobile but he requested the him to give the case number and he had replied that no case has been filed but Legal Notice alone was issued with regard to the matter in dispute, and requested him to have a meeting at a place convenient to him to settle the matter Mr. Sivaraman told him to contact during the Second Week of May. But during the second week of May he made several calls, but there was no response from the 1^st Opposite Party’s employee Mr.Sivaraman. None of the 1^st  Opposite Party Employees take any effective steps to settle the matter. Everyone gave evasive replies. He had requested the 2^nd Opposite Parties to make arrangement to settle the matter in respondent's regional office at Kodambakkam by fixing a particular person working there and a date convenient to both parties. Till now there is no reply from the Opposite sides. Hence the Complaint.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-13 . The Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served and remained absent and set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

On careful reading of the complaint and on perusal of exhibits marked in support of the complaint, it is clear that the Complainant had purchased Sony mobile phone bearing Model No.F8 332/ XPERIA X2/ DS / BLUE from the 3^rd Opposite Party, being Authorised dealer of the 1^st opposite Party, for a sum of Rs.38,085.71p exclusive of VAT, as found in Ex.A-1 Invoice dated 25.03.2017. From Ex.A-2 Retail Invoice dated 30.05.2017 it is evident that on 22.05.2017 the subject mobile of the Complainant was handed over for service on certain issues to the Authorised Service Centre of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties and display was found to be replaced and Software was updated, free of cost in the warranty period and handed over to the Complainant on 30.05.2017. From Ex.A-3 Retail Invoice dated 13.06.2017 it is evident that again on 05.06.2017 the subject mobile of the Complainant was given for service on certain issues in camera to the Authorised Service Centre of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, during the warranty period and the same was received and kept under observation by the Authorised Service Centre of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties and thereafter returned to the Complainant on 13.06.2017. From Ex.A-4 mail dated 14.11.2017 sent to the 1^st Opposite Party about the condition of the subject mobile as well as about non rectification of technical problems by the technicians and requested to replace a new mobile or for permanent solution to his issues, enclosing the Invoice and service bills and the said Mail was acknowledged by the 1^st Opposite Party reply mail dated 14.11.2017 marked as Ex.A-5 and a reference was given. And by Mail dated 15.11.2017, Ex.A-6, the 1^st Opposite Party had sent a detailed reply about the service done to the subject mobile of the Complainant and requested the Complainant to hand over his mobile for the issues faced, to their service centre. From Ex.A-7 Mail dated 16.11.2017 sent to the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant had sought for assurance for replace of mobile, as he could not constantly hand over the mobile without solving any purpose resulting in mental tension as he could not concentrate in his work, for which the 1^st Opposite Party had sent a reply mail dated 17.11.2017, Ex.A-8 and informed the Complainant that without inspection and troubleshooting of the subject mobile they could not resolve his complaint and hence requested to hand over the mobile to their nearest Authorised service centre for inspection and necessary troubleshooting. From Ex.A-9 Retail Invoice dated 05.01.2018 it is evident that the subject mobile of the Complainant was handed over to the Authorised Service center of the 1^st Opposite Party on 28.12.2017 for issues of heating and Audio problem which occurred during the warranty period and in the comments made by the Authorised Service center of the 1^st Opposite Party it was found that “part replaced set ok”. As in spite of the same the issues of camera turning into black, head phone developed snag and not audible and though the charging of mobile took long time energy discharged quickly, for which a legal notice dated 26.03.2018, Ex.A-11 was sent to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and on receipt the 1^st Opposite Party in response to Ex.A-11, had sent a reply dated 03.04.2018 to the Complainant, wherein three offers were given to the Complainant, as found in Ex.A-12, namely,1) Exchange with Sony XPERIA XZ Model: F8332(without box and accessories) handset in free of Cost,2) Exchange of Sony XPERIA XZ Model: F8332 with a new higher range model for the customer shall be required to pay the current MRP difference between the Model F8332 and customer's required higher model and 3) Refund of 80% of Purchase value as per the purchase invoice copy XPERIA XZ Model: F8332, and in this regard the Complainant was directed to contact one Sivaraman, Area Service In-charge, providing his mobile number. As it is found from Ex-13 letter dated 04.06.2018 sent by the Complainant to the 2^nd Opposite Party marking a copy to the 1^st Opposite Party that the said Sivaraman when contacted over mobile had requested to contact him during Second week of May, 2018 and thereafter when contacted had not responded to his calls, hence requested to make arrangements to settle the matter in their Regional Office at Kodambakkam by fixing a particular person and convenient date to both sides and to settle the matter within 15 days.

On discussions made above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that though the 1^st Opposite Party had admitted and offered to replace the subject mobile of the Complainant with a similar model or to Exchange the subject mobile with a new higher range model on paying the current MRP difference between the subject mobile of the Complainant and required higher model and also offered to refund 80% of Purchase value as per the purchase invoice copy of the subject mobile, to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 had not any effective steps to adhere with the offers made to the Complainant under Ex.A- 12, and had acted lethargically and negligently in settling the matter as per Ex.A-12, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties 1 to 3.  Therefore we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 had committed deficiency of service and caused serious mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 arejointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.39,990/- being the cost of the mobile bearing No. Sony XPERIA XZ Model:F8332 and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered. 

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.39,990/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Only) being the cost of the mobile bearing No. Sony XPERIA XZ Model:F8332 and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the date receipt of this order, failing which the above amount of Rs.39,990/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

          In the result this complaint is allowed.          

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 21^stof December 2022.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	25.03.2017	Invoice issued by the 3rd Opposite Party fo the purchase of two mobile by the Complainant
Ex.A2	22.05.2017	Bill issued by the 1st Opposite Party’s service centre at Tambaram-Job No.W117052201939
Ex.A3	05.06.2017	Bill issued by the 1st Opposite Party’s service centre at Tambaram-Job No.W17060501741
Ex.A4	14.11.2017	Email sent by the Complainant to the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties
Ex.A5	14.11.2017	Reply letter(Email) from the Sony’s customer care Centre
Ex.A6	15.11.2017	Reply Letter (Email) from the sony’s customer care Centre
Ex.A7	16.11.2011	Email sent by the complainant to the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties
Ex.A8	17.11.2017	Reply letter (Email) from the sony’s customer care Centre
Ex.A9	28.12.2017	Bill issued by the 1st Opposite Party’s service centre at Tambaram – Job No.W17122800924
Ex.A10	29.12.2017	Email sent by the Complainant to the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties
Ex.A11	26.03.2018	Lawyer Notice issued to the 1st 2nd and 3rd Oppsoite Parties
Ex.A12	03.04.2018	Reply letter by the 2nd Opposite Party to the complainant
Ex.A13	04.06.2018	Letter by the Complainant to the 2nd Opposite Party and a copy of the same to the 1st Opposite Party

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT