Haryana

Panchkula

CC/101/2015

SURINDER KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA& OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SINGH.

19 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                        

Consumer Complaint No	:	101 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	01.06.2015
Date of Decision	:	19.10.2015

                                                                             

Surinder Kumar Sood, Flat No.405, GH-9, Sector 20, near Police Station, Panchkula-134109.

                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Sony India (Redg. Office), A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Director.
2. Ultimate Services through its Proprietor Showroom No.55, Sector-5, Swastik Vihar, MDC, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.
3. Flipcart.com WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd No.42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli Village Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangluru Karnataka-560067 through its Managing Director.

 

                                                           ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

            Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

            Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Mr.Sandeep Singh, Adv., for the complainant.

            Mr.Rajesh Gaur, Adv., for the Ops No.1 and 2.

            Mr.Amit Mahajan, Adv., for the Op No.3.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. Surinder Kumar-complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Sony Xperia-23 on 04.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.42,990/- online from Flipcart.com i.e. OP No.3 which was delivered to him at home (Annexure C-1). After purchasing from the very first day, the phone started giving problem of hanging and some scratches were on the screen of mobile. The complainant approached the Op No.2 on 27.01.2014(correct date is 27.01.2015) and after inspection, the official of Op No.2 told that the same would be repaired very soon. On 10.03.2015, the complainant received the mobile after paying Rs.9621.71/- (Annexure C-2) whereas the mobile set was under warranty. After passing 2-3 days, the mobile again started giving hanging problem and the complainant approached OP No.2 on 08.04.2015 (Annexure C-3). The official of Op No.2 assured the complainant that they would remove the problem from the mobile. On 27.04.2015, the complainant sent a legal notice (Annexure C-4) to OPs either to remove the problem or to refund the amount, thereafter; the OP No.2 sent a message to the complainant to collect the mobile set from his premises. On 04.05.2015, the complainant visited the Op No.2 and received the mobile but the mobile was not working properly. On the very next day i.e. 05.05.2015, the complainant again approached the Op No.2 who also admitted the fault in the mobile (Annexure C-6) and kept the mobile in its office which is lying with the Op No.2 since then. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is a company of international repute and sells world class products all across the globe. It is submitted that the products of Op No.3 are not just the best sellers in India but also in several other countries and due to the quality of product of OP No.1, it enjoys an excellent market reputation. It is submitted that the handset was found to be physically damaged due to external impact and as per terms of warranty, the warranty stood void. It is submitted that as per condition of warranty, the Ops are not liable to repair free of cost or replace the handset, as the product lies outside the scope of warranty.  The terms of the warranty provided by Op No.3 is as under:-

“a.    Subject to the conditions of this Limited Warranty, Sony warrants this product to be free from defects in design, material and workmanship at the time of original purchase by a consumer, and for a subsequent period of one (1) year, which is the warranty period……….”

b.     If, during the warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship, Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option, either repair, replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein”

It is submitted that as per clause 3 of the terms and conditions of Warranty, any failure in the product arising out of damage caused by ingress of liquid would render the normal warranty void. The terms of Clause 3 is reproduced as under:-

“Clause 3: The warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product. Nor does this Warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid.”

It is submitted that the warranty has become void the repairs were performed on chargeable basis. It is submitted that as a gesture of goodwill, the complainant was made the following offer vide letter dated 06.07.2015:-

“We had received your handset at out Authorised Service Centre M/s Ultimate Services on 8^th April 2015, vide Work Order W115040803681 with symptom “Phone restarts by itself/sometime hand on Sony Logo”. On inspection we observed that side key FPC, battery, panel side charger and main board needs to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the handset. We had done necessary service and the handset is ready for collection from our Authorised Service Centre. Our Authorised Service Centre has tried to contact you regarding handset collection; however you have refused to collect the same without assigning any genuine reason.

Not amounting to admission of any liability on our part, but considering you as our valued customer we offer you below options. The same has already been communicated to you.

Option 1: Exchange with new unit of Sony Xperia Z3 Compact. The set comes without accessory and standard packing.

OR

Option 2: Exchange of your product with any current line-up Sony Xperia model by paying current MRP to MRP difference. The new product comes with normal full one year warranty. The payment will be made through cheque/DD favouring Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and new set can be delivered to you on realization of the cheque. Sony India Pvt. Ltd will retain the defective set as part of the exchange offer.”

It is submitted that the complainant accepted a sealed pack mobile handset and there could not be any scratched on the handset. It is submitted that reply to the legal notice dated 06.07.2015 ws sent by the Ops. It is submitted that the complainant himself refused to collect the mobile handset. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3. The Op No.3 has appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.3-WS Retail Services Private Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Ozone Manay Tech Part, No.56/18, ‘B’ Block, 9^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road Bangalore-560068. It is submitted that OP No.3 is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others. It is submitted that Op No.3 is a registered seller on the website “flipkart.com” which a separate legal entity and sells products of others through the website. It is submitted that the Op No.3 has acquired good market reputation for its range of products offered and for its exceptional customer support. It is submitted that OP No.3 is not engaged in selling of any goods manufactured or produced by its own. It is submitted that the product sold by the Op No.3 carried manufacturer’s warranty. It is submitted that there is no dispute between the complainant and the op No.3 as the Op No.3 is not the manufacturer of the product. It is submitted that the complainant purchased one mobile Sony Xperia-23 on 04.10.2014 for Rs.42,990/-. It is submitted that the Op No.3 has delivered the mobile phone in a sealed box as it was received from the manufacturer i.e. Op No.1 and within the time in the order. It is submitted that the complainant used the mobile phone for about three months and in the last week of January, 2015, the mobile had developed certain problems, thereafter, the complainant took it to authorized service center i.e. OP No.2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/4 and closed the evidence. Counsel for the Op No.3 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R3/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely and have also considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the Op No.3.
6. It is evident from the Annexure C-1 coupled with an affidavit of the complainant that he purchased Sony Xperia-23 mobile hand set online from Flipcart.com i.e. Op No.3 for a sum of Rs.42,990/-. This hand set started giving problem from the very next day of its purchase. The Ops admitted in their written statement that the complainant approached the Op No.2 alleging a problem with the hanging and charged Rs.9621.71 for repair whereas the mobile handset was under warranty. Inspite of repair, the mobile phone again starting giving problem of hanging. The complainant again approached the OP No.2 and they admitted this fact vide job sheet dated 08.04.2015 (Annexure C-3). The Op No.2 submitted that they intimated the complainant to collect the mobile phone after repair but the complainant did not come forward to collect the mobile phone. The Op No.2 did not submit any document to prove that they intimated the complainant to collect the mobile phone.
7. In the present complaint, the complainant has rightly prayed for refund of the amount paid towards the cost of hand set and amount charged from him for repair as he was deprived of its usage inspite of spending such a handsome amount for the purchase of the hand set. Even after the Ops offered the complainant to exchange of hand set with similar value model or exchange of product with any current lineup Sony Xperia Mobile by paying MRP to MRP difference, the new product comes with normal full one year warranty. The payment would be made through cheque/DD favouring Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and new set could be delivered to the complainant on realization of the cheque. The demand of the complainant for the refund of the price value of the hand set is due to the manufacturing defect in the hand set and proves product quality as well as poor services.
8. We do not find any merit in the plea taken by OP No.3. The Op No.3 submitted that he delivered the mobile phone in a sealed box as it was received from the manufacturer i.e. OP No.1. The complainant alleged that some scratches were on the screen of mobile. If the Op No.3 sold the mobile in a sealed box, from where the scratches occurred. Dealer is the person, who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and he assures about the quality of the goods sold. The OP No.3 cannot wriggle out or escape from its liability/duty to render services to the complainant.  
9. Evidently the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself but not for moving to the service center and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. Even the defects in the mobile handset on the very next day of its purchase, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
10. After having considered the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the offer given by the Ops for the exchange of hand set has stated above that too during the pendency of the complaint also proves deficiency in service on their part.
11. Resultantly, we find merit in the complaint, therefore, the same is allowed. The Ops jointly and severely directed as under:-
    1. To refund of Rs.42,990/- being the cost of the mobile hand set + Rs.9621.71/- charged from the complainant at the time of repair alongwith interest  9% pa from the date of receipt till realization.
    2. To make the payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
    3. To make the payment of Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
12. This order shall be complied with by the Ops jointly and severely within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

19.10.2015       S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR             DHARAM PAL

                       MEMBER            MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                   

                                            DHARAM PAL 

                                            PRESIDENT