| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER Wednesday the 31st day of May 2023 C.C.538/2015 Complainant Prasad T.R Neettumkara Quarters, Chemmannamkuzhi, Meenangadi – P.O, Wayanad – 673 591. (By Adv. Sri. Umesh Kumar.A.K) Opposite Parties - M/s. 3G Mobile World
Kings Way Building, Door No.5/3287, Bank Road Junction, Mavoor Road, Calicut – 673 001. (By Adv.Sri.Dilkhush.V.K) - M/s. Sony India Private Limited
A-31, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (By Adv. Sri.K.S.Vivek) ORDER By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. - The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 07/07/2015, the complainant purchased a handset manufactured by M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (Model C6902 Xperia Z1) from the 1st opposite party paying Rs.27,100/-. There was one year warranty for the device. The phone’s NFC was not working since purchase. On 10/07/2015, the matter was reported to the retailer. At first, they said that it might be some connection problems and asked the complainant to try to connect it with different devices. Even after doing so, the issue was not solved. So the complainant again contacted them and demanded replacement of the phone. Then they told that they did not have after sales services and added that the products once sold could not be replaced or the price refunded. So the complainant contacted Madonna System and service, Sony Authorized Service Centre at Kozhikode and discussed the matter. Then they told him that the complaint might be due to the fault of NFC equipment inside the phone and that they did not have the facility to repair the same. They also added that if the complainant entrusted the phone at their service centre, they would send it to their head office and return after repairs. However, they also declined his request to replace the phone with a new one. - Then the complainant approached Expert Zone, another Sony Authorised Service Centre at Kozhikode and they also told the same and declined his request for replacement of the handset. He was not agreeable for repair since the handset was purchased only a few days ago and if it is opened for repair the factory sealed waterproof would be lost forever. He was not happy with the approach of the retailer and both the service centres.
- So on 09/08/2015, the complainant contacted Sony Customer Support Center and expressed his grievance and the problems he was facing. After hearing the complainant, the person who attended his call registered a complaint and gave the complainant a service ID and asked him to contact any one of their service centres and demand replacement of the device. Accordingly, he contacted them. Unfortunately, they told that they could not accept the phone for replacement, but only for repairs and that too would take more than two weeks since they lacked the facility to service such phone. They were also reluctant to provide a substitute handset during the period. On contacting the Sony customer service centre again, they stated that they could only suggest contacting service centre and asked him to contact them on reaching the service centre. Accordingly, on 24/08/2015 the complainant submitted the handset at Madonna System & Service at Kannur. After inspection they too confirmed that the NFC equipment was not working. The complainant asked them to arrange replacement. But they too told him that they had to send it to somewhere else for repairs and would not replace. So, as advised, complainant contacted the Sony Customer Support Center and conveyed the situation. As requested by the Customer service Executive, the complainant handed over the phone to the service technician and, all of a sudden, the technician told the complainant that the call had dropped. Then the complainant tried several times to contact the customer service executive. The complainant did not understand what was happening since his call was dropping as soon as get connected. The complainant suspects that there was some play done to avoid him.
- Since the complainant was residing at Meenangadi in Wayanad, it was a great task for him to reach any of the service centres at Kozhikode or Kannur. There is no service centre in Wayanad district. On the complainant’s way back to Wayanad, he once again tried to contact the customer service centre and got connected without any problem. It was very thoughtful that the customer service executive was very much aware of all that happened at the service centre. As a result of the conversation, the customer service executive gave him an e-mail address, ie,
- On 20/09/2015, the complainant personally visited the retailer but they stated that they did not have any responsibility after sales. The retailer asked the complainant to contact their Manager for further clarification if any. Accordingly, the complainant contacted their Manager Mr. Nithesh on 21/09/2015 and he too asked him to contact the company only. Finally he issued a registered letter to the retailer but no reply was sent.
- Infact, there is fault not only in NFC but also many malfunctions are there in the phone. The phone’s quality is very poor in all sense. The camera of the phone is 20 mega pixels. The picture taken in this phone did not give exact quality of a 20 mega pixel camera. There is lack of natural colour in the picture. Another one is Network connection problem. Most of the time, network did not get connected when it was turned on. So the complainant could not connect it to the internet. Another problem is that the phone’s screen would sometimes turns off suddenly after a call is made. Sometimes the complainant could not accept calls since while call arrived the phone rings, but the screen would not turn on. During calls (both incoming and outgoing) some bad noises like birds chirping are heard and the conversations made are not heard clearly. So totally there are many malfunctions in this phone. This proves that the phone has serious manufacturing faults which cannot be repaired. Here the device did not satisfactorily work even for a day.
- Both the retailer and the company had violated their Warranty Policy. It is their full responsibility to sell a product after every quality check and to replace it if there is any manufacturing defect within the entire warranty period. Here the complaint was raised within three days of the purchase. Hence the complaint for refund of the purchase price along with compensation of Rs.15,000/-.
- The opposite parties filed written version jointly wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them. The purchase of the mobile handset by the complainant on 07/07/2015 is admitted. The complainant approached the service centre only once on 24/08/2015 with an issue of NFC not working in the said handset and the opposite parties fixed the problem by updating the software and the handset was collected by the complainant to his full satisfaction. Thereafter no other service request has been received from the complainant. The onus to prove the manufacturing defect as alleged lies on the complainant. The opposite parties - vide letter dated 18/12/2015 has informed the complainant that whatever issues in the handset were reported to them, the same had been duly addressed and as per the service engineer’s report, the set is working fine. However, if any issue was faced by the complainant, he could approach the service centre. But instead of doing so, he has filed the present complaint. There is no lack or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is a false and frivolous one intended to tarnish the reputation of the opposite parties. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are:
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let in by the opposite parties. The report of the expert Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1.
- Heard. The complainant filed brief argument note.
- Point No. 1: The complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the price of the mobile handset amounting to Rs.27,100/- along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of the difficulties suffered by him financially as well as mentally on purchasing the defaulted phone sold by the first opposite party and manufactured by the second opposite party.
- The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile hand set manufactured by the second opposite party [model No. C 6902 (Xperia Z1)] paying Rs.27,100/- from the first opposite party. The device was having a warranty of 1 year from the date of purchase. The main grievance of the complainant is that the NFC (Near Field Communication) was not working from day No.1 and his repeated requests to the opposite parties to get the fault rectified proved futile due to the irresponsible and negligent attitude of the opposite parties.
- In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext.A1 is the copy of the invoice dated 07-07-2015, Ext.A2 is the copy of the warranty certificate, Ext.A3 is the copy of service ID, Ext.A4 is the copy of the service job sheet dated 24-08-2015, Ext.A5 is the copy of E-Mail communication dated 25-08-2015, Ext. A5-A is the copy of the E-Mail communication dated 26-08-2015, Ext.A6 is the copy of the E-Mail communication dated 15-09-2015, Ext.A7 is the copy of the E-Mail communication dated 17-09-2015, Ext.A8 is the copy of the E-Mail communication dated 15-09-2015, Ext.A9 is the copy of the letter dated 22-09-2015 and Ext.A10 is the copy of the job sheet dated 31-03-2016.
- The opposite parties have admitted the purchase of the device by the complainant on 07-07-2015. The case advanced by them is that the complainant approached the service centre only once on 24-08-2015 with an issue of NFC not working and the opposite parties fixed the problem by updating the software and thereafter no other service request was received from the complainant. None of the opposite parties entered the box and adduced evidence.
- At instance of the complainant, Sri. Rahul, Lecturer in EEE, Kerala Govt. Poly Technic College, Kozhikode was appointed as an expert Commissioner to inspect the handset and to file report. Ext.C1 is the report filed by the learned expert after inspecting the device on 13-06-2022. The learned expert has reported that on visual inspection the battery of the handset is bulged and it is not getting charged and so he was unable to operate the hand set for checking the functions like NFC, camera, network connections, outgoing and incoming calls available in it. The learned expert could not examine the device as it was not functioning.
- It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the disputed mobile handset manufactured by the second opposite party from the shop of first opposite party for a price of Rs.27,100/-, as can be seen from Ext.A1. The product was having one year warranty from the date of purchase. Ext. A2 is the copy of the warranty certificate. Soon after the purchase, the NFC was not working. The complainant approached the retailer, manufacturer and several authorized service centres for rectifying the issue regarding NFC. From the pleadings and evidence, it is clear that he was running from pillar to post for redressal of his grievance. Several communications were there between the complainant, the manufacturer and the seller. This is evidenced by Exts A5 to A9. On all the occasions, he was asked by the manufacturer to contact the authorized service centers to get assistance. Though the complainant approached several authorized service centers including the one at Kannur, no positive action was taken by them to redress his grievance.
- The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant approached the service centre only once on 24-08-2015 with the issue of NFC not working and it was rectified and thereafter he never approached them for service. But such a case cannot be believed for a moment. Ext. A4 job sheet shows that the customer complaint was NFC not working. There is nothing stated in Ext A4 that the said complaint was rectified. If NFC complaint was rectified, definitely there would be endorsement to that effect in Ext.A4. But Ext.A4 is silent on this aspect. No document is forthcoming from the part of the opposite parties showing that the NFC complaint was rectified at any point of time. Moreover, Ext.A5 to A9 communication would belie the contention of the opposite parties. If the issue with regard to NFC was rectified, there was no need or scope for such communication. Further Ext.A10 would reveal that the issue with regard to NFC was persisting even as on 31-03-2016. It is clearly stated in Ext A10 that NFC was not working. No contra evidence is there. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence. None of them has entered the box.
- Admittedly, the complaint to the device arose during the warranty period. According to the complainant, apart from the complaint that NFC was not working, there were many other malfunctions. The complainant alleges that the pictures taken by its camera were of poor quality, the screen turns off suddenly after call, there was network connection problem and some noises like birds chirping etc. are heard and conversations made are not heard clearly. Ext.A10 shows that during the pendency of the complaint on 31-03-2016 the complainant had approached the service centre and it is mentioned in A10 that the NFC not working and board need to be replaced. Ext.C1 shows that the device is not functioning. It seems to be not in a repairable condition now. The device has become a worthless product as far as the complainant is concerned. There is gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties which has resulted in intense mental agony, hardship and inconvenience to the complainant, besides monetary loss. Considering all the above aspects, we find that this is a fit case where the complainant is to be compensated adequately. We are of the view that a sum of Rs.30,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
- Point No:2 :- In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
- C.C. NO: 538/2015 is allowed in part.
- The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
- The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
- The mobile hand set and its accessories shall be returned to the complainant on proper receipt.
Pronounced in open Commission on this the 31st day of May, 2023. Date of Filing: 19-10-2015. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant : Ext.A1 - Copy of the invoice dated 07-07-2015. Ext.A2 - Copy of the warranty certificate. Ext.A3 - Copy of service ID. Ext.A4 - Copy of the service job sheet dated 24-08-2015. Ext.A5 - Copy of E-Mail communication dated 25-08-2015. Ext. A5-A - Copy of the E-Mail communication dated 26-08-2015. Ext.A6 - Copy of the E-Mail communication dated 15-09-2015. Ext.A7 - Copy of the E-Mail communication dated 17-09-2015. Ext.A8 - Copy of the E-Mail communication dated 15-09-2015. Ext.A9 - Copy of the letter dated 22-09-2015. Ext.A10 - Copy of the job sheet dated 31-03-2016. Exhibits for the Opposite Party Nil. Commission Exhibits Ext C1 - Report filed by Sri. Rahul, Lecturer in EEE, Kerala Govt. Poly Technic College, Kozhikode. Witnesses for the Complainant PW1 - Prasad T.R (Complainant) Witnesses for the opposite parties Nil. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER True copy, Sd/- Assistant Registrar. | |
