BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 176/2019 (Filed on 13.06.2019)
ORDER DATED: 11.07.2024
Complainant:
S. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sukumaran, Mavarathala House, Cheruvalloor P.O., Kanyakumari District (S.R. Bhavan, Kottampooru, Malayinkil P.O., Thiruvananthapuram through COINPAR represented by M.A. Vahab, its General, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-35.
Opposite parties:
- The Sony India (P) Ltd., A18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044 represented by its Managing Director.
- The Manager, Customer Care, The Sony India (P) Ltd., Trinity Solutions, T.C. 121-10, Opposite to M.G. College, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
- The Quilon Radio Service (Authorized Dealer, Sony India), Raymond Building, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001 represented by its Managing Director, Electronics (P) Ltd., Pallimukku, Ernakulam.
ORDER
SRI. P. V. JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration. After hearing the matter this Commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to the opposite parties is seen served on them. The 3rd opposite party entered appearance and filed written version. After accepting the notice opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to appear before this Commission and hence opposite parties 1 & 2 were called absent and set ex-parte on 18.07.2019 and 27.08.2019 respectively.
3. The case of the complainant in short is that he has purchased a Sony mobile phone –G 3226 from the 3rd opposite party on 21.07.2017 by paying Rs. 30,000/-. The said mobile phone is manufactured by the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party is the customer care centre of the 1st opposite party. The complainant observed the problem of overheating and the complainant took the mobile set to the 2nd opposite party service centre who changed the network setting and installed the software and delivered the system to the complainant. Subsequently again the mobile phone was defective and the complainant found fire cracker like sound and sparks produced from within the mobile set and again the set was brought to the 2nd opposite party for repairing. At that time also the software updation and installation of applications were done and the set was given back to the complainant and the set was problem free for a short duration. Again the set was handed over to the 2nd opposite party with complaint. At that time also the 2nd opposite party reset the mobile phone and returned it to the complainant. All these services from the 2nd opposite party were of a temporary nature and there was no permanent solution for the problem of the mobile set. Subsequently, the mobile phone started automatically getting off and on and the complainant reported the matter to the 2nd opposite party and at that time the 2nd opposite party informed that the set has to be sent to Ernakulam for repair and for a probable replacement of the board of the set. Complainant submits that after the purchase of the mobile set the complaints were occurred frequently and hence according to the complainant the mobile phone is having manufacturing defect and he is entitled for replacement of the mobile set. The complainant further alleges that due to the act of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss and the same is to be compensated by the opposite parties. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.
4. The 3rd opposite party who is the dealer has filed a written version admitting the fact that the complainant has purchased a Sony mobile phone from the 3rd opposite party on 21.07.2017 by paying Rs. 30,000/-. The 3rd opposite party contended that they have sold a defect free mobile set to the complainant after accepting the consideration. The 3rd opposite party further admits that subsequent to that, when the complainant had problem with the mobile set he contacted the 2nd opposite party authorized service centre and from there defects were rectified. According to the 3rd opposite party, all the warranty services in respect of the mobile set is to be provided by the manufacturer of the product i.e; the 1st opposite party in this proceedings. The 3rd opposite party further submits in his written version that the sufferings if any faced by the complainant is to be compensated by the manufacturer and the 3rd opposite party being a dealer of the product is not responsible for any manufacturing defect of the product. The 3rd opposite party also produced two documents to prove that the warranty facility has to be extended to the customer by the manufacturer. Hence the 3rd opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties 1 & 2 being declared ex-parte, there is no version or affidavit or documents from their side. The authorized person of 3rd opposite party sworn an affidavit as DW1 and Exts. D1 and D2 were marked from the side of the 3rd opposite party.
6. Issues to be considered are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
- Order as to costs?
7. Issues (i) to (iii): Heard. Perused the affidavit, documents and connected records. To substantiate the case of the complainant, complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 were produced and marked. Ext. P1 is the copy of the invoice dated 21.07.2017 issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant. Ext. P2 is the retail invoice dated 28.04.2018 issued by the 2nd opposite party service centre. Ext. P3 is the service job sheet dated 19.02.2019 issued by the 2nd opposite party service centre. Ext. P4 is the copy of the notice issued to the opposite parties on behalf of the complainant. Ext. P1 proves that the complainant has purchased Sony mobile phone on 21.07.2017 from the 3rd opposite party by paying Rs. 30,000/-. Exts. P2 and P3 prove that the complainant has availed the service of the 2nd opposite party for rectifying the defects of the mobile phone. Ext. P4 proves that the complainant has demanded replacement of the product from the manufacturer. To defend the case, the 3rd opposite party though filed a written version none of the allegations raised by the complainant were seen denied by the 3rd opposite party. The only contention of the 3rd opposite party is that the liability to rectify the defect is not on the 3rd opposite party who is only a dealer, but the same is on the 1st opposite party who is the manufacturer of the product. In the written version the 3rd opposite party has admitted the fact that the complainant has purchased a Sony mobile phone from the 3rd opposite party and that the said set had some defects and the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party service centre for rectifying the defects. Hence in a way the 3rd opposite party is admitting the fact that the complainant’s phone was having defects and the same was rectified from the 2nd opposite party service centre. It is pertinent to note that all the complaints raised by the complainant were within one year from the date of purchase. It is evident from the records that within a period of one year the complainant was forced to approach the service centre on several occasions. It is to be noted that a brand new product needs to be taken to the service centre for a number of times within a short period from the date of purchase, is per se demonstrating of the fact that there were shortcomings in the product. In the above circumstances, it will be apt to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission for short) dated 26.03.2021 in Maruti Vs. Deepak Singh & Anr., wherein it is observed that “the bare fact that a brand new car needs to be taken to the workshop number of times, is per se demonstrating of the fact that there were shortcomings in the car. It was suffering from defects and was much below the expected quality and standard of the vehicle”. We find that the observation made by the Hon’ble National Commission is aptly applicable to the facts of this case. It is evident that the complainant was forced to frequently take the product within a short period to the service centre which leads to the impression that the product purchased by the complainant is much below the expected quality and standard of the product. It is also to be noted that the manufacturer and the authorized service centre were preferred to keep away from this proceedings even after accepting the notice issued by this Commission. The contention of the 3rd opposite party that the dealer cannot be held liable for the manufacturing defect of the product has also got some force. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Hindustan Motors Vs. Sunil Kumar reported in (2000) 10 SCC 654 held that a dealer cannot be held liable for the manufacturing defect in the product. From the above dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India coupled with the fact that the complainant has not raised any specific allegation against the 3rd opposite party dealer, we find that the 3rd opposite party is to be exonerated from the liability to compensate the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we find that the 3rd opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts. P1 to P4 coupled with the admissions made by the 3rd opposite party in its version, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties. From the available evidence we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. It is also evident that due to the act of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss. As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2, we find that opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties 1 & 2.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) along with Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) towards the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance or realization. After complying with the order the opposite parties can take back the mobile set from the complainant. The 3rd opposite party is exonerated.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 11th day of July 2024.
Sd/-
P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 176/2019
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Sunil Kumar
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of tax invoice dated 21.07.2017
P2 - Copy of retail invoice dated 28.04.2018
P3 - Copy of service job sheet dated 19.02.2019
P4 - Copy of notice dated 12.04.2019 issued in favour of complainant
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
DW1 - Authorized person of 3rd opposite party
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
D1 - Copy of repair service terms and conditions
D2 - Copy of warranty information
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
