DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 185/2017

Sh. Vinod Kumar

S/o Sh. Bua Dass,

R/o RZ G-26A, Mandir Marg,

Mahavir Enclave, Palam Dabri Road,

New Delhi-110045                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Consumer Service Head

          Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

          A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

          Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044

2.       Service Manager

          Technocare Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

          E-17, Ground Floor, Central Market,

          Lajpat Nargar, New Delhi-110024                    ….Opposite Parties

                                                Date of Institution                    : 03.05.2017         Date of Order                  : 10.12.2019

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. In the present case, the complainant purchased a mobile phone Sony Xperia XA on 27.09.2016 on having paid the consideration of Rs.17,919/-. The said phone is manufactured by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as OP No.1.
   1. It is submitted by the complainant that since the Ist month of purchase the said handset had camera related issues. The defective photographs are annexed as Annexure-B. It is further submitted that the complainant due to the said problem submitted the phone with the service centre Technocare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.2). The complainant collected his mobile phone from the OP No.2 on 29.10.2016 but despite his asking the representative of OP No.2 he was not told about the problems in his phone. The complainant vide email dated 02.11.16 showed his unwillingness to keep the phone as the phone was not working fine. The complainant again enquired regarding the problem in his mobile phone but no satisfactory reply was given to him.
   2. It is further submitted that the same problem with the camera occurred again. In this respect he wrote an email to OP No.1 and was advised that he should visit Sony Authorized Service Centre again. The complainant again deposited his phone with OP No.2 on 14.02.2017.  It was on that day the complainant got to know that the motherboard of the complainant’s mobile phone had been changed during the first repairs. The complainant was shocked knowing the change of motherboard of his mobile phone without his approval and knowledge.
   3.  The complainant has next pointed out various discrepancies in the service job sheet dated 14.02.17. It is stated that the complainant’s previous job sheet number and date mentioned therein was wrong.  Further the colour of the mobile phone mentioned in the job sheet was also wrong. The job sheet dated 14.02.2017 is annexed as Annexure-F and the retail invoice is annexed as Annexure-G.  It is also submitted that IMEI number of the mobile phone has also been changed due to change of motherboard, without his knowledge. The complainant on 20.03.2017 received an SMS from OP No.2 that his mobile phone was ready for collection. The complainant refused to take the faulty mobile phone. Thus, aggrieved by the circumstances above, the complainant approached this Forum with the prayer to refund Rs.17,990/- cost of mobile phone alongwith interest @ 19% per annum. Further to direct OP to pay Rs.1 lakh as damage/compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. OP No.1 and OP No.2 resisted the complaint and filed a joint reply stating inter-alia that after purchasing the said handset on 27.09.16 the complainant approached the service centre on 26.11.16 raising an issue of ‘Intermittent lines on screen’.  The service centre immediately attended the complainant and after carrying out the necessary inspection, service centre replaced the mother board of the said mobile handset. The said replacement was done free of cost.
   1. It is next submitted that the complainant again approached the service centre on 14.02.2017 raising an issue of “lines on the front side of the camera”. The service centre thereafter replaced the NFC Antenna plus Front Camera plus Main Camera lens assembly of the said handset. It is submitted that even these replacement of parts was done absolutely free of cost.
   2. It is further submitted that the complainant was immediately attended upon for the problems pertaining to his handset and the said problems were duly resolved free of cost. Therefore, as there is no deficiency of service no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset is alleged by the complainant. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit.
4. OP No.1 and OP No.2 failed to file their evidence; therefore, OPs’ right to file evidence was closed vide order dated 27.08.2018.
5. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the complainant.
6. Submissions of the complainant are heard and material placed on record is perused carefully.
7.  Admittedly the complainant purchased a mobile phone which was still in the warranty period when it started giving problems to the complainant. A retail invoice/cash/memo/bill by OP No.2 is annexed as Annexure-G which reflects that on 26.10.2016 the model number F3116 and IMEI number 358129073994480 of the mobile phone which is Grey Black in colour was deposited with OP No.2 wherein condition of the said mobile is referred to as ‘subject to check’.  
8. A service job sheet dated 14.02.2017 wherein the model number of phone is F3116 colour of the phone is Rose Gold and the IMEI number is 358129072501484 is shown. The condition of the set as noted down is ‘scratches ……. surety screen guard, also back screen guard, minor dent onside corner, middle panel and scratches also major scratches on camera lens’.  The ASC comments mentioned in the service job sheet are ‘sometimes lines on front camera and camera lens scratch not under warranty’.  Complainant in support of his case has also annexed emails written to OP. In the mail dated 03.11.2016 to OPs the complainant wrote:

“ I just want to know what was the problem and what they did to my phone. I am not satisfied with the service. Camera doesn’t work as it would before.”  

9. The said mail establishes the fact that the phone camera was not working properly at the first instance when the phone was given to OP No.2 for repairs. Further OPs have failed to give satisfactory reply or adduce any evidence in their support as to whether and why the motherboard of the phone was changed when the camera was dysfunctional. Further the particulars mentioned in the service job sheet dated 14.02.17 creates doubt in the mind of the Forum whether the job sheet was of the complainant’s phone as the colour, the previous job number and date of the repeat job are all different from the 1^st job sheet given by OP No.2 on 26.10.16. Further OPs are unable to convince the Forum as to why they changed the motherboard of the phone of the handset in question  without informing the complainant and despite his asking  them again and again the OP No.2 remained silent on this aspect.
10. In view of the aforementioned discussion this Forum is of the opinion that OP-1 and OP-2 is jointly and severally liable for providing deficient service. Therefore,  we allow the complaint and direct OP No.1 and OP No.2 to refund the purchase amount of the phone in question i.e. Rs.17,990/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date when it was first submitted with the OP No.2 i.e. on 26.10.16 till realization.
11. Additionally OP No.1 and OP No.2 are directed to pay Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation cost. The OP No.1 and OP No.2 shall comply with this order within 45 days from the date  of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which OP-1 and OP No.2 shall pay the above said amount of Rs.17,990/- to the complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date when it was first submitted with the OP No.2 i.e. on 26.10.16 till realization.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.  

Announced on 10.12.19.