Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/502/2014

Perwez Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Complainant In Person

04 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint No.	:	502/2014
Date of Institution	:	24.09.2014
Date of Decision	:	04/08/2015

 

                       

             

Perwez Khan son of Late Md.Samid Khan r/o H.No.3315, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh.

                   ...  Complainant

Versus

1.   Sony India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Representative, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-11004.

 

2.   Sony Authorized Service Centre Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, SCO No.144-145, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh

3.   Jumbo Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Elantemall, Shop  240, 2^nd Floor, 178-178-A, Business Park Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative /Manager.

 

4.   Bajaj Finser V. through its Branch Manager, SCO No.16, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Ranjan Lohan, Counsel for the complainant

          Sh.Amit Arora, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

          Sh.Alok Bhatara, Counsel for OP No.3.

          Sh.Varun Chawla,  Counsel for OP No.4.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.      In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Sony Xperia Z Mobile from OP No.3 vide Invoice dated 23.05.2014 for Rs.28,500/-, Annexure C-1 after having got it financed from OP No.4.  It has been averred that at the time of purchasing the mobile, OPs No.1 and 3 gave an assurance that there is warranty for one year and in case of accidental damages within six months, the mobile would be replaced.  The copies of the warranty card and the document showing accidental damage cover which has been downloaded from the website of the OP are Annexures C-2 and C-3. On 26.08.2014, the mobile handset became dead.  On 27.08.2014, the complainant rushed to OP No.2 (Service Center) who after checking the mobile said that the same was not being charged on the pretext that the charging jack pin is broken.  It has further been averred that at the time when he took the mobile phone to OP No.2, the charging jack pin was not broken and the same was broken when executive of OP No.2 took the same in the room on the pretext of charging it.  The same was done with a mala fide intention to evade the protection of Accidental Damage Cover and the warranty cover.  However, OP No.2 assured that the same would be repaired and as such the same was handed over to it vide job sheet dated 27.08.2004, Annexure C-4. Thereafter, the complainant sent repeated e-mails but to no avail.  Ultimately, the complainant received an e-mail from Sony Xperia Contact Centre on 11.09.2014, Annexure C-7 stating therein that the mobile phone is ready for delivery.  On 13.09.2014, the complainant visited OP No.2 to collect the mobile handset and he was handed over a filled performa mentioning therein that the set is in good working condition and the same was signed by him and returned to the executive of OP No.2 but when the mobile handset was brought, the same was not working. Thereafter, the complainant took the performa from the executive of OP No.2 but since the same was obtained by the executive with a mala fide and dishonest intention wrongly showing that the handset was in working condition, the executive tried to retain the said performa and the complainant took the said performa by the executive and in that process, the same was got torn. A copy of the said performa is Annexure C-8. It has further been averred that the OP tried to play mischief by informing him to sign the performa, Annexure C-8 in order to evade the liability of repairing or replacing the mobile handset. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.      OPs No.1 and 2 filed their joints written statement admitting therein that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question.  It has been pleaded that OP No.1 strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.  It has further been averred that on 27.08.2014, the mobile was checked by the engineers of OP No.2 and on checking it was found that the charging pins inside the charging jack of the handset missing due to some external factor and the same became defective not due to some inherent problem but rather due to external cause thereby rendering the warranty term void and vitiated.  It has further been averred that OP No.1 escalated the matter to its higher management for replacement of the handset under the Accidental Damage Protection (ADP) Scheme but the same was rejected with the remarks “rejected, customer usage issue, no cover under ADP”.   It has further been averred that the defect in the handset arose not due to any accident but due to rough/reckless usage and mishandling of the handset. It has further been averred that as a goodwill gesture, they offered to exchange mobile handset with a new handset of the same model at 50% of its MRP or exchange the handset with a new refurbished handset at 33% of its MRP but to no avail. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.      In its separate written statement, OP No.3 has pleaded that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone in question on 23.05.2014.   However, it has further been pleaded that any defect in the quality or service of the product is the liability of the manufacturer and not the seller.   According to OP No.3 it has been clearly mentioned in the invoice that “we regret to inform that mobile phones, computers and laptops shall not be covered under the exchange policy”.   It has further been pleaded that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the invoice and the product will not be exchanged by it and it does not have any other liability. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.      OP No.4 in its written statement has stated that Bajaj Finserv is a brand name whereas the name of the Company is Bajaj Finance Ltd.  It has further been stated that  no relief has been claimed by the complainant against it. It has been admitted that the complainant availed the finance of Rs.28,500/- for the purchase of the mobile phone in question which was to be repaid  at the monthly installment of Rs.2375/- within 12 months. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the complaint is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is an admitted fact on record that the mobile handset is covered under warranty for one year  as per Annexure C-2 and in case of accident damages for six months as provided in  Annexure C-3 i.e. Xperia Accidental Damage Cover.   It is also a factum on record that the mobile phone in question was purchased on 23.05.2014 and the same became defective on 27.08.2014 i.e. within three months of its purchase and as such the same was covered under the Xperia Accidental Damage Cover.  The defence of OPs No.1 and 2 is that on checking the mobile handset, the charging pins inside the charging jack were found missing due to external factor thereby rendering the warranty term void and vitiated.  It was further submitted that the defect in the mobile handset did not arise due to any accident but due to reckless usage and mis-handing of the same by the complainant.  This plea of OPs No.1 and 2 is bereft of any merit because it is not expected from a prudent man like the complainant that he would use his mobile handset recklessly and that too after spending the huge amount of Rs.28,500/-.  Besides this, OPs No.1 and 2 has not been able to bring on record any affidavit of their engineer to prove that the same was result of mishandling and reckless use by the complainant. In the absence of such an evidence, the story put forward by OPs No.1 and 2 cannot be believed. Nevertheless, it is admitted that the charging pins of the mobile phone was found to be missing even then the same could be said to be the result of some accident and not the reckless usage by the complainant as tried to be projected by OPs No.1 and 2.   Otherwise also, as per condition No.5 of the Xperia Accidental Damage Cover (Annexure C-3), they are liable to indemnify the complainant for the losses/damages which is occasioned to the product due to physical breakage/damage/liquid spillage and short circuits due to electricity voltage fluctuation.  In this view of the matter, the act of non-replacing of the mobile handset with a new mobile handset despite its coverage under the Xperia Accidental Damage Cover amounts to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 and 2.
7.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed as under ;-

1. To replace the mobile handset in question with a brand new of the same make/model and fresh warranty or in the alternative to refund its price. 
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

8.      This order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(ii) above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
9.      However, the complaint qua Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 stands dismissed.
10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

04/08/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER