Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/304/2018

P.T.Geotom - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony Eicsson (Authorised) Service Center & Other - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.Sathish

21 Dec 2022

ORDER

 

                                                                   Complaint presented on : 03.08.2011

                                                                    Date of disposal            : 21.12.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                     : PRESIDENT

                                   TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                                   THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.304/2018

 

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 21^ST   DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

 

P.T.Geotom,

S/o. P.M.Thomas,

No.18/49 Kamala Apartments

Veerabadran street,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai-600 034.                                                                …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

 

1. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS

No.A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110 044

Rep by its Managing Director.

 

2. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS,

“Centennial Square, 6^th Floor,

No.6A, Dr.Ambedkar Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai-600 024.

 

3. SONY ERICSSON (AUTHORISED) SERVICE CENTRE,

No.36, Sarojini Street,

T.Nagar,

Chennai-600 017,

Rep.by its Manager.                                                        …. Opposite Parties

(Amended as per order in CMP. NO. 211/2015, dated:14.06.2016)

 

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/s.V.Sathish & N.Murugesan

 

Counsel for  1^st opposite party                  : Ex-parte

Counsel for  2^nd & 3^rd opposite party        : M/s.M.M.Law Associates.

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER-II

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to directing the opposite parties to replace the same instrument or an instrument with the same features without any defect and to pay a sum of Rs.400000/- towards mental agony and torture and physical stress caused to the complainant and to pay Rs.20000/- towards legal expenses.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 223/2011.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.304/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          According to complaint, the complainant is a practicing advocate in the High Court and the complainant had purchased a mobile phone Sony Ericsson Naite J105i model from Sony Ericsson Experience Store, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006 on 28.04.2010 for a sum of Rs.6,000/- which is the outlet of the 1^st opposite party.  From the first day the mobile phone did not work properly and on 10.04.2011 the video conferencing facility of the mobile stopped functioning and on 16.04.2011 the phone was presented for service and repair to 3^rd opposite party who issued a work order No. SE311PHZ11345 and informed that the instrument would be delivered on 28.04.2011.  During the visit on 28.04.2011 the 3^rd opposite party informed that the phone could not be repaired and the same would be sent to factory for same.  Even after a month, the phone was not delivered and enquired the 3^rd opposite party who informed that the instrument was not returned from the factory of 1^st opposite party.  On 15.06.2011 the 3^rd opposite party told the complainant that the instrument could not be serviced and as such the same has been replaced with another instrument.  The complainant rejected the offer as the said instrument does not have special features of the model as that of the complainant and questioned that why his mobile was replaced without his consent and for this the 3^rd opposite party replied that 1^st opposite party had directed the 3^rd opposite party to replace with another instrument since the production of model of the complainant was stopped.  Since the complainant  had not obliged the request of the 3^rd opposite party, he was directed to contact the service head of 1^st opposite party who informed that the work order has been closed and delivered and asked the complainant to give a letter stating that the replaced instrument was not satisfactory so that a new work order has to be taken for the same.  The complainant in order to provide an opportunity to rectify the defect, caused a lawyer’s notice on 22.06.2011 and the same was received by the 1^st opposite party on 28.06.2011 and by 3^rd opposite party on 25.06.2011 but no reply was given.   Hence this complaint. 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY(SONY ERICSSON (AUTHORIZED) SERVICE CENTRE now 3^rd opposite party):

          Despite receipt of notice, the 1^st opposite party had not appeared before this Commission and hence, the 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte.  The complainant filed a memo on 14.11.2022 along with one document and stated that opposite party 3 namely sony Ericssion authorised service centre has merged with opposite party 2 namely Sony Mobile Communication and not pressed the complaint against the opposite party 3 and hence the complainant against 3^rd opposite party was dismissed as not pressed.

          The 2^nd opposite party denies all the allegations and averments set out in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 2^nd opposite party is running a cell phone service centre and he is not a retailer or a sales dealer of Sony Ericsson.  Regarding the deficiency in service, the 2^nd opposite party is no way related with the exact issue and hence the complaint is not maintainable.  As per complainant the mobile phone was purchased from the dealer of 1^st opposite party and hence the 2^nd  opposite party is no way related with default of complainant’s mobile phone.  The complainant had approached the 2^nd opposite party on 16.04.2011 being the mobile phone was within the warranty period.  The 2^nd  opposite party guided the complainant to go for replacement of new mobile set since the spares parts are in demand or delay in getting it at the time with good sense and the complainant was replaced with new model of mobile phone on 06.09.2011 and the same was duly intimated to the complainant but the complainant refused to receive the same.  On refusal to receive the replaced mobile phone, the 2^nd opposite party asked the complainant to give letter in writing stating that he was not willing to receive the replacement, but the complainant issued a legal notice.   In the meantime, the J105i model mobile phone was ready with 2^nd opposite party which was intimated to complainant on 26.07.2011, but the complainant had filed complaint before this commission.  The request of the complainant to rectify the mobile phone was promptly attended and ready for delivery but the complainant only refused to collect and hence there is no deficiency on the party of 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore, it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit, written argument, and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked.  The 2^nd opposite party have filed written version, proof affidavit and written arguments(SONY ERICSSON (AUTHORIZED) SERVICE CENTRE).  No documents were marked on the part of opposite party.

4. POINT NO :1

          The 3^rd opposite party refer to Sony Ericsson Authorized Service Centre and the 2^nd opposite party refer to Sony Mobile Communications, Chennai-24 after amendment.   Perused the documents.  Heard the learned counsel for complainant.  According to the above, the undisputed fact of the complaint is that complainant had purchased a mobile phone Sony Ericsson Naite J105i model from the 1^st opposite party outlet on 28.04.2010 and the mobile phone was given to 3^rd opposite party for service and repair on 16.04.2011.  The purchase bill of mobile phone is marked as Ex.A1.

          5. The complainant contended that right from the first day the mobile phone did not work properly, and he had given the mobile phone for repair to 3^rd opposite party on 16.04.2011 before the expiry of warranty period.  The work order issued by the 3^rd opposite party is marked as Ex.A2.  The complainant further contended that 3^rd opposite party promised to return the instrument on 28.04.2011 and while approaching the 3^rd opposite party on 28.04.2011, it was informed that instrument could not be rectified and the instrument should be sent to factory and further on approaching the 3^rd opposite party, it was informed that the instrument was not returned from factory and further gave evasive replies.  On 15.06.2011 the complainant was told by the 3^rd opposite party that the instrument could not be rectified and the same has been replaced by another instrument on 10.06.2011 for which the complainant had rejected this offer as the said instrument does not have special features as that of the complainant and when the same was questioned by the complainant, the 3^rd  opposite party told that 1^st opposite party only directed to  replace the instrument, since the 1^st opposite party have stopped the production of model. The complainant further contended that after repeated requests the 3^rd opposite party directed the complainant to contact the service head of 1^st opposite party who informed that the work order has been marked as closed and delivered and further informed that complainant has to give a letter in writing to 1^st opposite party in order to replace the same instrument stating that the instrument replaced is not satisfactory and  a new work order has to be taken for the same.    The complainant in order to provide an opportunity to opposite parties to rectify the defect, issued a legal notice on 22.06.2011 and same was received by the 1^st and 3^rdopposite parties.  The legal notice and ack. card are marked as Ex. A3 and A4.  Proof of delivery is marked as Ex. A5.  The warranty agreement is marked as Ex.A6.

          6. On the other hand, the 3^rd opposite party(SONY ERICSSON (AUTHORIZED) SERVICE CENTRE previously 2^nd opposite party) in their averments stated that the mobile phone was within the warranty period and guided the complainant to go for free replacement of new mobile which is possible by the 1^st opposite party since J105i spare parts are in demand or delay in getting it at time.  The complainant had agreed for replacement and subsequently mobile phone was replaced with a new model but the complainant had refused to collect the free replacement of new latest model mobile phone and hence the complainant was asked to give a letter stating that complainant do not want any free replacement of any new mobile phone but the complainant had issued a legal notice.  In the meanwhile, the 3^rd opposite party rectified the complainant’s mobile  phone J105i model and intimated to complainant on 26.07.2011 but the complainant had filed this complaint.

7.  From the above, it is observed from Ex.A1, that complainant had used his mobile phone from the date of purchase to almost one year and gave the mobile phone for repairs on 16.04.2011, just 12 days before the expiry of warranty period.  It is also observed from Ex.A1, that mobile was found with scratches, without battery, back cover, sim card and memory card.  The problem description as per complainant in Ex. A1 was “unable to made video calls, operation gets failed while calling”.  Whereas, the complainant in his complaint averred that right from 1^st day the mobile phone did not work and on 10.04.2011 the video conferencing facility stopped functioning.  If such is the status, then how the complainant had used the mobile phone for more than 11 months and gave it for repair just before 12 days from the date of expiry of warranty.  Hence the contention of the complainant that the mobile phone did not work from the 1^st day itself is not sustainable. 

8.  According to complainant the mobile was given for repairs on 16.04.2011 and the 3^rd opposite party promised to return it on 28.04.2011.  But no document was filed by complainant for the return of mobile phone on 28.04.2011.  The complainant in his averments admitted that 3^rd opposite party had replaced the phone on 10.06.2011 but he refused to accept because it does not have same features of what his mobile phone had.  Whereas the 3^rd opposite party contended that because of delay in getting parts, they replaced the mobile phone but the complainant was not ready accept the same and to create the new work order they sought a written letter from the complainant stating rejection of replaced phone.  The 3^rd opposite party further contended that in the meanwhile complainant’s mobile phone i.e.J105i model was also ready and the same was intimated to complainant on 26.07.2011.  But no document was filed by the 3^rd opposite party in this regard.  From this, it is noticed that 1^st opposite party had responded promptly when it was referred by 3^rd opposite party and through 3^rd opposite party the phone was replaced but it was not accepted by complainant and if the same was given in writing, they were ready to create new work order to attend the grievance of complainant.  Whereas the complainant issued a legal notice without giving an opportunity to opposite parties to redress his grievance and also filed complaint in this commission. There is no delay on the part of the 2^nd opposite party as service centre in delivering the mobile phone after service since it has waited for reply from 1^st opposite party which cannot be termed as negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Since that model of the mobile phone was stopped by the 1^st opposite party the opposite parties rightly has given opportunity to the complainant for replacement of a mobile phone of another model, but which was refused by the complainant and such replacement of another model without the consent of the complainant cannot amount to willful negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

          9.  The complainant had filed a memo stating that 1^st opposite party had acquired the shares of 3^rd opposite party i.e. Sony Ericsson and thereby formed Sony Mobile Communication, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties of the complaint and hence prayed for “not press” the 3^rd opposite party since the same does not exist.  Accordingly, the complaint against the 3^rd opposite party is dismissed.

10. The learned counsel for complainant relied upon the citation CDJ 2014 TNSCDRC 108, Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, V. Care Vs R. Saravanan & Another.  The facts of the case stated supra is not relevant to the present complaint.

11. Based on the above observations, this commission of considered view that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled for free replacement of phone and compensation as claimed in the complainant.  Since the phone was already repaired, he is entitled receive the same from the opposite parties free of charge.  Point No.1 answered accordingly.

12. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled to the relief for replacement and compensation for mental agony, torture and physical stressas claimed in the complaint. But since the instrument is with the opposite parties 1 and 2, they are directed to hand over the instrument in good working condition to the complainant free of charge within two months.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to handover the disputed instrument namely mobile phone in good working condition to the complainant free of charge within two months from the date of receipt of this order copy and the complaint is  disposed off accordingly. There is no order as to cost considering the facts of the case. The complaint against the 3^rd opposite party is dismissed.

Dictated  by the Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by usin the open Commission on this the 21^st day of December 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER – II                         PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	28.04.2010	Copy of Purchase Bill No.25359
Ex.A2	16.04.2011	Copy of work order issued by the 3rd  opposite party
Ex.A3	22.06.2011	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.A4	25.06.2011	Ack.card received from the 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A5	20.07.2011	Proof of delivery issued by the post office at chennai.
Ex.A6		Warranty agreement.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^ND AND 3^RD OPPOSITE PARTY:

NIL

 

 

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER – II                         PRESIDENT