Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

68/2013

K.Narasimhalu, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Party In Person

09 May 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  20.03.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  09.05.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 09^th   DAY OF MAY 2017

 

C.C.NO.68/2013

 

 

K.Narasimhalu,

8/24 Nettal Garden 2^nd Street,

Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.M/s.Sony India Ltd., (Opposite Party )

A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi – 110 044,

Phone No.011 – 6600 6600.

 

2. M/s. Accel Frontline Ltd.,

(Authorised Service Partner of Sony Ltd.,)

No.75, 1^st Floor, Accel House,

Nelson Manickam Road,

Aminjikarai, Chennai – 29.

Ph.No.044 42252000.

 

3.Univercell Telecomunication India Pvt. Ltd.,

4/31, Madhavaram High Road,

Perambur, Chennai – 11,

Pin Code : 600 011.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 21.03.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                 : M/s.A.R.Suresh, A.Rajendiran &

                                                                    G.Dharoga

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                     : M/s. Lenin & Bhagya

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                      : Ex - parte

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the cost of the mobile and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a Sony Mobile Phone, Model WT 19 I from the 3^rd Opposite Party on 08.04.2012 for valuable consideration. The mobile phone started giving trouble that the product was not getting charged and he could not use  the same by end of October 2012. The Complainant handed over the mobile to the 2^nd Opposite Party for service rectification. Whenever the Complainant contacted the persons at the 2^nd Opposite Party, they replied that there was an issue in the connector which needs to be replaced and waiting to get the spares from Sony limited.

2. Finally the Complainant got his mobile on 15.01.2013 stating non-warranty service done. After two days, again the product stopped working while using and hence the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party and informed the issue. The 2^nd Opposite Party replied that the board which needs to be replaced and same would cost around Rs.8000/- to Rs.9000/- and the said spare was not covered under the warranty. However the fact remains still the product was under warranty period.  The Opposite Parties informed that due to mishandling the fault occurred. The Complainant again approached on 26.02.2013 and spoke to Mr.Anup and on his direction he met Mr.Kumaravel of 2^nd Opposite Party and after he checking with his team and replied that a sum of Rs.8,000/- would be charged.  The Opposite Parties have not rectified the mobile. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for the deficiency committed by the Opposite Parties seeking refund of the cost of the mobile and also compensation for mental agony with cost of Complaint.       

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This Opposite Party is engaged in the business of distribution of Sony Brand Mobile Phone and other electronic goods.  The said products are sold to the customers through their authorized dealer and mobile phone services are provided through a network of the authorized service centre. This Opposite Party admits that the Complainant purchased Sony Mobile Phone with one year warranty from the date of purchase. The warranty does not cover any failure of the product and damage has been caused by the Complainant due to activities such as damage caused by accident or any other external cause. The Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party on 02.11.2012 stating that the handset was not charging. The service centre upgraded the software and observed the handset for few days and found that the connector was broken due to the charging connector had been pulled with great force and that it caused the mother board of the handset to be damaged. Such external force caused damage could not  cover the terms of the warranty.

          4. The Complainant was duly informed to approve the estimate for the replacement of the mother board and also the charging connector. However the Complainant refused to approve the estimate of the mother board and only approved  the estimate for the replacement of the connector for a sum of Rs.400/- and the product was delivered to the Complainant. It is the Complainant who had not approached the Forum with full facts. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BREIF:

          The Complainant brought the mobile on 02.11.2012 claiming a problem in the battery and after checking the battery and software upgraded and returned the product to the Complainant on the same day. 

          6. The Complainant brought the mobile on 07.11.2012 to the Opposite Party and found that the product and charging connector damaged and for such defects the warranty is not applicable. The damaged parts were replaced on 10.01.2013 and the product was delivered to the Complainant on 15.01.2013. The Complainant well aware of the damaged connector problem and the warranty is not applicable. Again when the Complainant approached he was informed that the mother board has to be replaced and the same is not covered under warranty. The Complainant did not give approval for replacement of mother board. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

          7. The 3^rd Opposite Party called absent and set ex-parte.      

8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

9. POINT NO :1 

          The Complainant purchased a Sony Mobile Phone, Model WT 19 I from the 3^rd Opposite Party on 08.04.2012 for valuable consideration under Ex.A1 invoice dated 08.04.2012 and the 1^st Opposite Party engaged in the business of distribution and marketing of mobile phones and other electronic goods under the brand name of Sony and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the authorized service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party.

          10. The Complainant alleges deficiencies in the mobile phone that by the end of October 2012 there was an issue in the connector and after rectifying the same at a cost Rs.400/-  again the mobile was not working within two days and the 2^nd Opposite Party/service centre identified the issue that the mother board is not working and same has to be replaced at a cost of Rs.8,000/- even though warranty period is available and therefore the Opposite Party failed to rectify the problem within the warranty period at  free of cost is deficiencies on the part of the Opposite Parties and therefore prays to allow the Complaint.

          11. The problem of charging connector was rectified. According to the Opposite Parties the replacement of mother board was estimated cost of Rs.8,000/-  and the Complainant had not approved the estimate for replacement and hence there was no fault on the  part of the Opposite Party. Further the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 pleaded in their written version that the mother board was damaged due to the external force used by the Complainant and therefore the warranty is not covered for the damage caused by the Complainant. The fact of damage caused to the mother board alleged by the Opposite Party 1 & 2 was not denied by the Complainant in his proof affidavit subsequent to filing of the written version. Therefore, the mother board was damaged due to external force cannot be rejected.

          12. The Complainant has not filed the copy of the warranty for the mobile phone purchased by him to ascertain that whether the damage caused due to external force, the spares has to be replaced at free of cost. Without the terms and conditions of the warranty, it cannot be accepted that the replacement of spares has to be done at free of cost or not. Therefore, in such circumstances the case of the Opposite Parties that the warranty is not covered for the replacement of the mother board at free of cost is accepted and in view of such conclusion, it is held that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have not committed any deficiency in service.

13. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 09^th day of May 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.04.2012                   Purchase bill of Univercell

Ex.A2 dated 09.12.2012                   Complaint Acknowledgement

Ex.A3 dated 12.12.2012                   Complaint Acknowledgement

Ex.A4 dated 08.12.2012                   Follow up mail reference

Ex.A5 dated 28.02.2013                   Follow up mail reference

Ex.A6 dated 15.01.2013                   Service Bill

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 07.11.2012                   Retail Invoice/Cash/Memo/Bill

 

Ex.B2 dated 02.11.2012                   Service job Sheet

 

Ex.B3 dated 07.11.2012                   Service Job Sheet

 

Ex.B4 dated 29.12.2012                   Accel Frontline services Ltd

 

Ex.B5 dated 03.01.2013                   Run service Infocare Pvt.Ltd.,

 

Ex.B6 dated 15.01.2013                   Accel Frontline Ltd.,

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st   OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ……. NIL ……

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                              PRESIDENT