Orissa

Cuttak

CC/78/2017

Rabhava Rao Tadibonia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S P Mohanty

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.78/2017

      Raghava Rao Tadiboina,

      Presently Res. At:C/o:Advocate B.N.Rath,

      2D/263,Sectgor-11,C.D.A,Cuttack-753015.                             … Complainant.

 

                                Vrs.

 

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31Mohan

Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,New Delhi-110044.

 

2. Reliance Digital Xpress,Plot No.16-C,

Sector-6,C.D.A, P.S:Markat Nagar,

Cuttack-753014.                                                                         … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   08.06.2017

Date of Order: 13.11.2017.

 

For the complainant:               Sri S.P.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For  the O.P.No.1 :                   Sri R.Sarangi,Advocate & Associates.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Member.

                The complaint is against unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

1. Shortly the case is that the complainant purchased a XPERIA Sony Mobile handset from O.P.2 for a price of Rs.50,339/- on 14.10./2016(Annexure-1).  When the sealed packet was opened Head set MH 750 was available with the set (Annexure-3) but not that one which was promised in the product promotion advertisement (Annexure-2).  On 14.10.2016 E.Mails were sent to different executives of Sony and the complaint of the complainant was recorded vide No.700161880.  The complainant received an e.mail that “our team will contact you with the resolution of your grievances as on 14.11.2016.”  The complaint lodged by E.Mail to question in @ support Sony mobile.com.bears vide complaint no.1-28248195179 dt.14.10.2016and again on 19.11.2016 vide No.1-28670304807 and the reply was to wait for 48 hours for resolving the issues.  Mail was also sent to service head @ ap.sony.com.  Since then the complainant is not using the said mobile and kept it with its covers for retouring it to O.P. No.2 with refund and compensation.  The complainant has alleged that O.P No.1 is selling products by deceiving customers.  Different customers have also given their comments on AMAZON websites (Annedure-4).  The mails send by the complainant to O.P No.1 and O.P No.2 regarding the complaint and the reply received from O.Ps are given vide Annexure-5.  Similar complaints and comments given by different customers are given vide Anenxure-6.  On 22.11.2016 a legal notice was served on O.Ps (1 & 2)(Annexure-7 & 8) but no reply was received from them.  Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter under this Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.ps to refund the cost of Handset Rs.50,000/-, compensation for mental harassment Rs.30,000/-, cost of litigation Rs.10,000/- and compensation for loss due to use of other hand set Rs.10,000/-.  Thus he has claimed a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. 2.            O.P No.1 vide its written version dt.  has intimated that the complainant had purchased a Sony Xperia X2 handset on 14.10.16 for Rs.50,399/- from O.P No.2 after a detailed demonstration of features,functions,applications along with the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions(Annexure-2).  The warranty provided by O.P No.1 is for one year (Annexure-R-3).  No such offer relating to Headphone model MDR-NC 750 was given by O.P No.1 as per their record.  The complainant has also not furnished any record or evidence regarding such an offer of free headphone (Model MDR-NC-750) with purchase of handset given by O.P No.1.  As per records such an offer was given by O.P No.2 but never by O.P No.1.  Such an offer was also not given by O.P No.1 through any of the Medium (Advertisement/publication/verbal communication etc.).  Such an offer was given by O.P No.2 vide its web page.  (Annexure-R-3).  Since the  offer relating to the headphone was given by O.P No.2, the liability falls on O.P No.2 &  O.P No.1 is not responsible for such facts.  The complainant has not produced any material evidence which proves that such an offer was given with the handset by O.P No.1.
3. O.P.2 neither appeared nor filed any written version.  Hence set exparte on 06.11.2017.
4. We have gone through the case records in details, heard the advocates from both sides and observed that the complainant  purchased a Sony Xperia X2 handset on 14.10.16 for a price of Rs.49,990/-(including Bajaj processing charges amounting to Rs.349/- the total cost was Rs.50,339/-) from O.P No.2 on 14.10.2015.  As per Jio welcome offer as given by Reliance Digital High Resolution Audio Headset MDR-NC 750 was supposed to be given to the complainant/purchaser along with the said Sony Xperia X2 model (Annexure-2 & 4 of complaint petition).  But when the complainant paid the amount and opened the pack he found headset MH 750 instead of MDR-NC 750 headset.  He lodged complaint and contacted O.P No.1 & 2 for the purpose but it did not yield any result.  O.P No.1 has intimated that such an offer was given by O.P No.2 and not by O.P No.1.  O.P No.2 neither attended the hearings nor submitted any written version to this effect.  Thus we conclude that O.P No.2 has nothing to say further on this matter.
5. Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, we have observed that the offer was given by O.P No.2 and not by O.P No.1.  Since O.P No.2 neither attended the hearing nor submitted any written version as required for the purpose, we are constrained to believe the uncontroverted complaint of the complainant as well as the explanation given by O.P No.1 for the purpose.  Thus we found that O.P No.2 has given a false advertisement to promote its sale.  Although they have offered to provide MDR NC 750 headset, as they have supplied another headset i.e. MH 750.  Hence O.P No.2 is found guilty for unfair trade practice.  The complainant has not produced any record/proof against O.P No.1.  He has neither   produced any record(s) regarding defects of the said mobile handset nor he has lodged any complaint to this effect.  Hence we do not conclude that the handset was a defective one.

ORDER

Basing on the facts and circumstances, the case is allowed against O.P No.2 exparte and against O.P No.1 on contest.  O.P No.2 will supply a MDR NC-750 Sony High Resolution Headset to the complainant as per the advertisement as given by O.P No.2.  O.P No.2 will also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-( ten thousand) as   compensation towards harassment and a further sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) towards cost of litigation.  The supply of above headset and payment of above noted amount to the complainant shall be made within a period of 45 days, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this court as per C.P.Act,1986.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 13^th day of November,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

   (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                         Member.

                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                    (  Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                        President.

                                                                                                    (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                              Member(W).