Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/223/2016

S.Purushothaman - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.Natarajan

12 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   06.06.2016

                                                                        Date of Order :   12.01.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT             

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

               DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.223/2016

THURSDAY THIS  12^TH  DAY OF JANUARY  2017

 

S. Purushothaman,

Old No.8, New No.19,

Easwardoss Street,

Triplicane, Chennai-5.                                            ..Complainant

 

                                              ..Vs..

 

1.  Sony India Pvt. Ltd by its Chairman,

No.A31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi 110 004.

 

2.  The Manager,

Repair  & Return Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,

Shop NO.26 & 27 Prince Plaza,

No.73, Pantheon Road,

Egmore, Chennai -8.                                                  ..Opposite parties.

 

For the Complainants                 :    M/s. S. Natarajan      

For the opposite parties               :    Exparte.

 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties to pay a sum of rs.15,300/- towards cost of the Sony mobile with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice by the 2^nd opposite party and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant purchased the mobile phone Sony T3 model No.D5102 on 7.6.2015 from Saravana Super Store, T.Nagar, Chennai for a sum of Rs.15,300/- with a warranty period of one year.  Due to accidental fall from the complainant’s daughter’s hands in Feb’2016 the panel of the mobile got damaged and the same was replaced by the 2^nd opposite party on charge basis despite subsistence of warranty.   Thereafter the problem of non working of its Twin camera facility in the mobile arose and the mobile was given for repairs to the 2^nd opposite party on 9.4.2016 as per the instruction given by the customer cell of the 1^st opposite party.  The said mobile was returned on 11.4.2016 by the 2^nd opposite party after repairs with an assurance that recurrence will not be there.   But found to his great shock that the same problem recurred on 16.4.2016 and gave the mobile to the 2^nd opposite party which was returned to him after repair on 18.4.2016.  But the same problem continued and the mobile was given to the 2^nd opposite party on 19.4.2016 who assured that the problem will be ended.   Shockingly the same problem continued and the mobile was again given on 4.5.2016 for repairs to the 2^nd opposite party which is still with the 2^nd opposite party.

2.     Due to non working of twin camera facility in his mobile, despite of great assurance of effective repairs being done by the 2^nd opposite party the complainant was greatly dismayed for having purchased to worthless mobile suffering from inherent manufacturing defect.   The complainant also sent a legal notice on 12.5.2016 to the opposite parties to repay the cost of the mobile but the opposite parties failed send any reply despite of receipt of the same.   Therefore the act of the opposite parties who manufactured and sold the defective mobile and also ineffective repairs done amounts to gross deficiency of service and also he was subjected to mental agony and pain.  Hence the complaint is filed.         

3.     Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite parties did not appear before this forum and therefore they were set exparte.

4.     Though the opposite parties remained expate this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this forum. 

5.     In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to Ex.A6  are marked. 

6.      At this juncture the point for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  parties as alleged in the complaint?.

 

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled for?

7.  POINT No. :1

          It is evidenced through Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 that the complainant had purchased  mobile phone Sony T3 model No.D5102 on 7.6.2015 from Saravana Super Store, T.Nagar, Chennai for a sum of Rs.15,300/- with a warranty period of one year.   It is also seen from the evidence of the complainant that due to accidental fall of the mobile from his daughter’s hand in Feb 2016 the panel of the mobile got damaged but the panel was replaced by the 2^nd opposite party on charge basis despite subsistence of warranty.  

8.     Here the grievance of the complainant is that  after replacement of the panel in the mobile the problem of non working of its twin camera facility in the mobile arose and it was given for repairs on 9.4.2016 to the opposite party and it was returned with an assurance that the problem was rectified.   But again he faced the same problem in the mobile and again it was given to repair and 16.4.2016  the same problem continued in the mobile and again it was given for repair on 4.5.2016 which is still with the 2^nd opposite party.    Therefore the complainant has raised allegation that the opposite party sold defective mobile to him and sought for refund of the cost of the mobile.  

       
10.    It is seen that the complainant had purchased the mobile on 7.6.2015.    The complainant himself had admitted that the mobile phone was fallen from the hands of his daughter and panel was replaced.  It also reveals from the job sheet Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 that the mobile phone was given for repair due to non working of twin camera only on 11^th  April 2016 onwards.   As such it is clear that the mobile phone twin camera was working until that date.    Therefore the contention of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party sold defective mobile and therefore he is entitled for refund of cost of the mobile is not acceptable.  Moreover  the complainant had not furnished any expert opinion to prove the manufacturing defect in the mobile and thereby he failed to establish his case against the 1^st opposite party.    Therefore the complainant is not entitled for refund of the cost of the mobile. 

12.    However the Job sheet also reveals that again and again nearly for several times the mobile phone has been given to the 2^nd opposite party for the same complaint of non working of twin camera in the mobile.    It is also evidenced through the job sheet that since the product was under warranty the 2^nd opposite party had done the repair without any charge every time.   However the 2^nd opposite party could have taken much effort in detecting the defect in the mobile while servicing.   But it appears that the 2^nd opposite party had failed to do the service in proper manner and as such again and again the same problem occurred.    It also reveals from the evidence of the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party gave continuous assurances to rectify the defect whereas they failed to do so.  Hence the contention of the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party had committed deficiency in service is acceptable.  Moreover as per the contention of the complainant the mobile phone is in possession of the 2^nd opposite party.

13.    Whereas the opposite parties had not chosen to appear before this forum to rebut  the said contentions of the complainant and given any contra evidence but remained exparte.   Therefore this forum can draw adverse inference.

 

13.    Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the view that the 2^nd opposite party  had commited deficiency in service and is directed to rectify the  complaint mentioned defect in the mobile at free of cost to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant.  However the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and he is entitled for just and reasonable compensation and as such the 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant.  In respect of opposite party-1 this complaint is dismissed and   regarding other relief also the complaint is dismissed.   Thus point No.1 & 2 is answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   Accordingly the 2^nd opposite party is directed to rectify the complaint mentioned defect in the mobile at free of cost to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant and also   to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.  In respect of opposite party-1 this complaint is dismissed and   regarding other reliefs also the complaint is dismissed.  

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.

              Dictated by the Member-I to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  12^th  day  of  January  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  7.6.2013   - Copy of Invoice cum Delivery Challan.

Ex.A2              - Copy of warranty.

Ex.A3- 11.4.2016  - Copy of service job sheet.

Ex.A4- 23.4.2016  - Copy of Service job sheet.

Ex.A5- 4.5.2016    - Copy of service Job sheet.

Ex.A6- 12.5.2016  - Copy of legal notice with ack. due.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:   .. Nil.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.