Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/31/2015

Shubham - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N.S.Jagdeva

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	31 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	22/01/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	30.09.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Shubham s/o Sanjay Verma r/o circular road, Gandhi, chowk, Batan Market, Bittu di hatti, (kitchen hut) Abhor Distt. Fazilka pin 152116.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  Sony India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, A-31, Mohan Counsel for the Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044.

 

2.  Anmol Watches and Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through its proprietor SCO No. 1012-13 Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

3.  Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Authorized service centre for Sony Mobiles through its Manager, SCO No. 144-145, Ist Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate 

 

For Opposite Parties    :     Sh. Sanvijay, Advocate.  

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased a mobile made Sony Xperia Z1 white manufactured by OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.35,890/-vide Annexure C-1 from OP No.2 having one year warranty. The OPs had also extended free Xperia accidental damage cover as is evident from Annexure C-3 and premium of the said cover was included in the price of the mobile. However no terms and conditions of this cover were supplied to the complainant. It has been stated that though the complainant was facing defect in the mobiles after some days of using the same but on June 2014 another defect in the said mobile occurred as the same bend from middle, which was a physical accidental damage and stopped functioning and its screen had become blank and the mobile was also not charging. It has further been stated that since the set was made secure with accidental damage cover as per Annexure C-3 therefore, the complainant approached OP No.3 on 3.7.2014 and handed over the mobile to the OPs for replacement/repair against job card Annexure C-5. OP No.3 asked the complainant to collect the handset on 7.7.2014 but when the complainant went again he was asked to come again on 16.7.2014. It has further been stated that thereafter despite numerous visits to the service centre the set of the complainant was not replaced. It has further been stated that OP No.3 told the complainant that he would be informed as and when replacement of the set is received from OP No.1. It has further been stated that the set is lying with the OPs in a dead conditions. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

2]       The Opposite Parties in their joint reply while admitting he factual matrix of the case stated that the handset of the complainant was not covered either under the ADP policy or the warranty terms. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties for covering his handset under warranty with a bent handset which was a clear case of mishandling and the same was not covered under the ADP policy. The Mobile set was found to be physically bent, which clearly showed that it was damaged due to external impact rendering the warranty also void. The complainant damaged the set due to his own mishandling. It has been clearly mentioned in the warranty terms that any physical damage due to external impact shall render the warranty as void. Therefore, repair or exchange of the phone was on changeable basis. It has been denied that the complainant had been visiting the Opposite Parties. In fact the complainant was already informed that his mobile phone could not be replaced.  It has been denied that the phone bent due to heating of the phone. It has further been stated that as per standard warranty of one year provided by OP No.1 exchange or repair within the warranty period shall be in the sole discretion of the Opposite Party No.1. Even the complainant refused to collect the set from the Opposite Parties and reverted the alternative solution offered by the Opposite Parties. Denying all other allegations leveled in the complaint it has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld. Counsel for Parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       Annexure C-1 on file shows that the complainant purchased a mobile Sony Xperia Z1 White, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, for Rs.35,890/- from Opposite Party No.2.  It is further proved on record that mobile handset in question is not only covered under one year warranty given by the manufacturer against any manufacturing defects, but the OPs had also extended Free Xperia Accidental Damage Cover to the complainant, although the OPs denied of providing any such cover.  Ann.B on record proves itself that the Xperia Accidental Damage Cover is available on the selected models of mobile phone, which have been purchased on or after 15.9.2013 and this cover was discontinued from July 1, 2014.  The list of selected models, as mentioned in Ann.B, is reproduced hereunder:-

“Selected Models- XPERIA Tablet Z, XPERIA Z Ultra, XPERIA Z2, XPERIA Z1, XPERIA Z, XPERIA ZL, XPERIA ZR, XPERIA SP, XPERIA C. Any deletion/inclusion in the list shall be notified by Sony.”

 

7]       It is on record that the complainant purchased the mobile handset in question i.e. XPERIA Z1 within the scheme period of free Accidental Damage Cover launched by the OPs, which further without any doubt proves that the said handset was covered under the Xperia Accidental Damage Cover.

 

8]       Undoubtly, the said set developed certain defects within short span of time and the same was handed over to the authorised service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.3 for the rectification of the defects, which is evident vide Ann.C-5 i.e. Service Job Sheet dated 03.07.2014.  It is also admitted that till date, the said handset is lying with the OPs and the alleged defects have not been rectified nor the same has been replaced under the Xperia Accidental Damage Cover.

 

9]       In their defence, the OPs submitted that the mobile handset in question had been found to be physically bent and the same happened due to the mis-handling of the complainant. The OPs further submitted that bent in the mobile phone in question shows that it had been damaged due to the external impact rendering the warranty also void and the repair or exchange of the phone shall only be on chargeable basis.

 

10]      The stand taken by the OPs is not trustworthy as the person, who spends huge amount for purchasing a product, cannot be expected to intentionally made harm to the same and use the same recklessly, as alleged by the OPs. Nothing has been placed on record by the Opposite Parties, to prove the allegation of mis-handling of the mobile phone in question by the complainant, by placing on record any affidavit of their experienced engineer.

 

10]      As has been discussed earlier that the said mobile handset in question is covered under Xperia Accidental Damage Cover, accordingly as per Condition No.5 of the terms & conditions of the said cover, so placed on record by the OPs vide Ann.B, provides as under:-

“This Accidental Damage Cover indemnifies the customer from the losses/damages which is/shall be occasioned to the product due to physical breakage/damage, liquid spillage and short circuits due to electricity voltage fluctuation.”   

 

11]      The Opposite Parties in their reply to the notice dated 23.2.2015 (Ann.E) also admitted that upon inspection of the handset in question, it was observed that the handset was physically damaged.

   

12]     In view of the above, the OPs are liable to indemnify the complainant for the losses/damage, which is occasioned to the product due to the physical breakage/damage.

 

13]      In view of the above matter, the act of the Opposite Parties for non-replacing the mobile handset in question with new one, despite its being covered under the Xperia Accidental Damage Cover, amounts to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.

   

14]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

        

a]  To replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model, free of cost or in alternative refund the price/cost thereof i.e. Rs.35890/-;

 

b]  To pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

C]  To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount of compensation of Rs.8,000/- at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of  Rs.5,000/- and complying with directions as at sub-para (a) above.   

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

30.09.2015                   

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.31 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 30th day of September, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member