Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/693/2019

Parminder Singh Sekhon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Sadana

24 Sep 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/693/2019
Date of Institution	:	11/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	24/09/2020

 

Parminder Singh Sekhon aged about 40 years son of Bhalinder Singh Sekhon, resident of H.No.284, Naya Gaon, Shivalik Vihar, Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-18, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its authorized signatory.
2. Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Sony Authorised Service Centre, SCO 126-127, First Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.
3. Chandigarh Video Games, Booth Noo.164, Sector 35D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                

ARGUED BY

:

None for the parties

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The summary of allegations are, on 21.5.2018, complainant had purchased a play station 4 500GB from OP-3/vendor which was manufactured by OP-1. OP-2 is the service centre of OP-1. The averments are, consideration paid was Rs.29,000/- and it carried warranty of one year from the date of purchase.  His case is, in the month of April 2019, there was some issue with the product and for its resolution complainant had visited OP-2. However, OP-2 could not fix the problem. He was informed, the product had some dents on the corner, therefore, it was a complainant induced damage and thus not covered under warranty. Instead of getting it repaired, OP-2 offered the complainant to purchase a new product with 20% discount on MRP. The case of the complainant is the said defect was covered under the warranty and the dents were caused due to its frequent use. Notice was issued to the OPs, but, to no avail. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complainant filed the instant consumer complaint praying for directing the OPs to supply him with a new generation latest play station; pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest besides litigation expenses. 
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being not maintainable as on 4.4.2019, when the product was produced before OP-2, it was found there was no display in the play station. It was also observed, the HDMI Port stuck inside and moreover there were deep dents on the corner of the said play station.  It was due to mishandling of the product by the complainant. The photographs were taken and job sheet was also prepared. Hence, it was a chargeable service and OPs had given offer to replace the said play station with a new one at a discounted price of 20% on the MRP which was not acceptable to the complainant. The complainant had used the play station for almost 11 months without any problem and when the play station was taken to OP-2 it was in damaged condition. Pleaded, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     Rejoinder was filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     In spite of knowledge, none had appeared for the parties to advance their oral arguments. We have gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments submitted by OPs. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     Per pleadings of the parties, admittedly the complainant had purchased the play station in question from OP-3 on payment of Rs.29,000/-, which developed issue of display and OP-2 could not fix the problem and asked for chargeable service because it was complainant induced damage as the dents were found on the corner of the article, hence, not covered under warranty.
7.     The complainant explained the damage was caused due to its frequent use, however, he admitted there were dents in the play station. Having regard to the natural course of events, the dent is always caused when something strikes against the object and it results into dent or damage.
8.     Not only this, even the documents produced on record i.e. to say service job sheet dated 4.4.2019 shows, it was not working, no display, hdmi port stuck inside.  It was also observed, there were deep dents on the corner and the OPs had given offer to the complainant to purchase a new one upon replacement of the old damaged one after getting 20% discount on the MRP. Not only this, even the photographs also shows there were dents on the corner of it and we have already observed dents could only be caused when something strikes against the object or there was a fall on the hard surface. This negligence could only be attributed to the complainant as it was in his possession and user and, therefore, per clause 3 of the India domestic service warranty, as contained in Annexure R-4, warranty shall not cover any damages resulting from un-authorized adaptations or adjustments to the product. Hence, it was not within warranty and, therefore, chargeable service was required.  We do agree with this contention.
9.     Per pleadings of the parties, it is the admitted case of the OPs, OP-2 i.e. the service station on behalf of OP-1 had offered replacement of the product with a new one with 20% discount on the MRP. We may say here, instead of resolving the issue or preparing the estimate or getting the consent of the consumer, OPs started selling their new product upon replacement of the old one i.e. the damaged play station by offering 20% discount on the MRP.
10.     It is not the case of the OPs, such damage or fault was not repairable; rather they have not taken the trouble to assess the damage and quantify the estimate which was to be charged from the consumer against payment. On the contrary, OPs compelled the complainant to purchase a new product by offering 20% discount on exchange with the damaged one. These facts, to our mind, definitely constitute unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. They should have straightaway assessed the value of the damage and then, after taking the consent of the complainant, ought to have repaired it on chargeable basis, though we hold said damage was not covered under the warranty.
11.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, the consumer complaint is partly dismissed and partly allowed. Since the relief prayed for by the complainant needs to be moulded, therefore, the OPs are directed as under :-

1. The complainant, if he so wishes for repair, shall handover the damaged play station in question to the OPs or say OP-2 who will quantify the estimate in terms of money involved for such repair and apprise the complainant about it. Thereafter, if the complainant opts for such repair, OPs shall do the needful within a fortnight.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him and for compelling him to purchase their new product by offering 20% discount in exchange with the old damaged one;
3. to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.     This order be complied with by OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i), if so opted by the complainant, & (iii) above.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
24/09/2020		[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg		Member	President