Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/366/2014

M/s.R.Paul Rafson Jani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Private Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.A.Amal Raj

14 Feb 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 08.07.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 14.02.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.366/2014

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

                                 

R. Paul Rafson Jani,

S/o. Mr. K. Ravikumar,

Plot No.360, Secretariat Colony,

Thuraippakkam,

Chennai – 600 009.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                        

 

                                                                                          ..Versus..

 

1. Sony India Private Limited,

Represented by its Corporate Office,

Through its Regional manager, Chennai,

2^nd Floor, Hameedia Centre,

No.14/43, Haddows Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 006.

 

2. Regional Customer Centric Division,

Represented by Customer Care Incharge

P. Sushmitha,

Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

‘Sai Sriyas Krishna Towers’,

No.72, Poonamalle Road,

Gandhi Nagar,

Ekkaduthangal,

Chennai – 600 032.

 

3. Accel Frontline Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

Thiru Building,

Ground Floor,

No.160, Greams Road,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for the complainant        :  M/s. A. Amal Raj & others

Counsel for the opposite parties  :  M/s. J.P. Karunakaran &

                                                          another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to provide a fresh set of Sony Xperia Z-Model  cell phone to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,12,000/- towards compensation for the hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant and also for dragging him from pillar to post demanding Rs.16,000/- for the replacement with cost.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he has purchased ‘Sony XPERIA Z’ model cell phone on 10.08.2013 bearing model No.Z 6602 and IMEI No.355666057356759 for a sum of Rs.35,999/-.   The complainant submits that the opposite parties issued warranty certificate for a period of one year from 10.08.2013.  The complainant submits that during the month of February 2014, during the course of usage, to his shock and surprise that the cell phone went out of order due to manufacturing defect namely; overheating, black spots appeared in camera, display made a single airline crack internally which developed into multiple airline crack automatically, receiver problem and other minor defects resulting that the complainant who is a fourth year M.B.B.S. student not able to use the mobile phone caused great inconvenience.   The complainant submits that the said defects and malfunctioning of cell phone was caused during the guarantee period.  Hence, the complainant approached the opposite parties’ Service Centre on 15.02.2014.   On due investigation, the 1^st opposite party stated that there is a grave manufacturing defect which cannot be cured by way of servicing and the 1^st opposite party also stated that on payment of Rs.16,000/- and surrendering the defective cell phone replacement by way of fresh piece can be made.    Since the complainant is a student not able to afford such payment insisted to 1^st opposite party to repair and rectify the defects.  But the 1^st opposite party refused to comply the requests of the complainant.   The complainant submits that during the warranty period, refusing to service, repair and rectify the defect by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.   The complainant submits that the allegation that damages / defects caused to the impugned cell phone is due to external impact.    Since, the opposite parties has not come forward to replace the defective mobile phone within the period of warranty, the complainant issued legal notice dated:10.03.2014 for which, the opposite parties 3 & 2 sent reply notices dated:18.03.2014 and 23.03.2014 respectively but not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 1 to 3 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 to 3 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that the opposite parties strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided on the product due service, replacement will be extended.  In this case, as per clause 3 of the warranty, the impugned mobile phone is not coming under the purview of free service or replacement.  The opposite parties has produced its photographs to prove the external damage of the impugned cell phone.    The opposite parties state that for the first time, the complainant brought the cell phone on 17.02.2014 to the 3^rd opposite party after using handset for more than 7 months complaining that the touch of the handset was not working.  On inspection, it was found that the handset was damaged by external cause.   There was a large crack on the screen of the handset.  Hence, the warranty is not applicable.   The opposite parties state that the cost of repair turns out to be extremely uneconomical for the customer.  Therefore as a gesture of goodwill, the representatives of the 3^rd opposite party made an offer to the complainant for exchange of new handset at a discount price of 50% of the MRP.    Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint has to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled the relief of replacement of Sony Xperia Z-Model cellphone with a fresh set as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,12,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the Counsels also.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he has purchased ‘Sony XPERIA Z’ model cell phone on 10.08.2013 bearing model No.Z 6602 and IMEI No.355666057356759 for a sum of Rs.35,999/- as per Ex.A1 which is admitted.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties issued warranty certificate for a period of one year from 10.08.2013 as per Ex.B2.  Further the contention of the complainant is that during the month of February 2014, during the course of usage, to his shock and surprise that the cell phone went out of order due to manufacturing defect namely; overheating, black spots appeared in camera, display made a single airline crack internally which developed into multiple airline crack automatically, receiver problem and other minor defects resulting that the complainant who is a fourth year M.B.B.S. student not able to use the mobile phone caused great inconvenience.   Further the complainant contended that the said defects and malfunctioning of cell phone was caused during the guarantee period.  Hence, the complainant approached the opposite parties’ Service Centre on 15.02.2014 for servicing the mobile phone Ex.A2.   On due investigation, the 1^st opposite party stated that there is a grave manufacturing defect which cannot be cured by way of servicing and the 1^st opposite party also stated that on payment of Rs.16,000/- and surrendering the defective cell phone replacement by way of fresh piece can be made.    Since the complainant is a student not able to afford such payment insisted to 1^st opposite party to repair and rectify the defects.  But the 1^st opposite party refused to comply the requests of the complainant.   But till date, the complainant has not received the mobile phone which is placed for repair. 

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that during the warranty period, refusing to service, repair and rectify the defect by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.   Equally, claiming a huge sum of Rs.16,000/- after surrendering the defective mobile phone for replacement amounts to unfair trade practice.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the allegation that damages / defects caused to the impugned cell phone is due to external impact; is not acceptable because, the opposite parties has not produced any Engineer Report in this case even though the opposite party is having Expert Team of Engineers.  On the other hand, the complainant has produced Ex.A4, website photos showing the difference between the natural and artificial airline crack which is not denied by the opposite parties.  Since, the opposite parties has not come forward to replace the defective mobile phone within the period of warranty, the complainant issued legal notice dated:10.03.2014 as per Ex.A5 for which, the opposite parties 3 & 2 sent reply notices as per Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 on 18.03.2014 and 21.03.2014 respectively with untenable contentions.   Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming for replacement of mobile phone and compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- with cost.

7.     The contention of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided on the product due service, replacement will be extended.  In this case, as per clause 3 of the warranty, the impugned mobile phone is not coming under the purview of free service or replacement.  The opposite parties has produced Ex.B3, photographs to prove the external damage of the impugned cell phone.  But the opposite parties miserably failed to prove Ex.B3 by way of expert opinion eventhough the opposite parties is having Eminent Engineers with well experience.  The opposite parties also had not stated any reason for such non-production of expert opinion.   On the other hand, as per Ex.A4, website showing the defect arising out of the artificial and natural defect.    Further the contention of the opposite parties is that for the first time, the complainant brought the cell phone on 17.02.2014 to the 3^rd opposite party after using the handset for more than 7 months complaining that the touch of the handset was not working.  On inspection, it was found that the handset was damaged by external cause.   There was a large crack on the screen of the handset Ex.B3.  Hence, the warranty is not applicable.  But it is apparently very clear that the Engineer who investigated the handset has not given any report.  Equally, the expert Engineers available with the opposite parties’ manufacturing unit also has not submitted any expert opinion with regard to the impugned handset.   Further, it is not disputed that the cell phone had the defect of overheating, black spots in the camera receiver problem etc are not disputed and it is not due to the external impact. 

8.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the cost of repair turns out to be extremely uneconomical for the customer.  Therefore as a gesture of goodwill, the representatives of the 3^rd opposite party made an offer to the complainant for exchange of new handset at a discount price of 50% of the MRP.   But on a careful perusal of the entire records, there is no iota of evidence to prove either in the warranty card or in the invoice this option was given at the time of purchase.  On the other hand, claiming a sum of Rs.16,000/- for replacement of the handset is unethical and arbitrarily proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally shall replace the Sony Xperia Z-Model mobile phone with a brand new one within one month, failing which, refund the cost price of Rs.35,999/- of the said mobile and a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally are directed to replace the Sony Xperia Z-Model mobile phone with a  brand new one within one month, failing which, a sum of Rs.35,999/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) being the cost price of the said mobile and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-  (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

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

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 14^th day of February 2019. 

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                              PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	10.08.2013	Copy of Express Mobile-Delivery bill
Ex.A2	15.02.2014	Copy of Service Job sheet
Ex.A3	22.02.2014	Copy of rretail Invoice
Ex.A4		Copy of website photo showing difference between crack and artificial crack
Ex.A5	10.03.2014	Copy of legal notice by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite parties
Ex.A6	18.03.2014	Copy of reply notice by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant’s  Counsel
Ex.A7	21.03.2014	Copy of reply notice by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s  Counsel

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:- 

Ex.B1	07.02.2014	Copy of Board Resolution
Ex.B2		Copy of warranty terms
Ex.B3		Copy of photographs exhibiting the external damages to the handset
Ex.B4	09.10.2014	Copy of the letter of the 2nd opposite party to the complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                              PRESIDENT