Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/239/2015

Varinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Anuj Kohli Adv.

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	239/2015
Date of Institution	:	13.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	16.11.2015

 

                                               

                                                         

 

Varinder Singh s/o S.Inderpal Singh r/o House No.127/1, Sector 55, Chandigarh

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.      Sony India Pvt. Ltd., through its M.D./Chairman having its Regd. Office at A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

 

2.      Sony India Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized representative having its Branch Office at 3^rd Floor, Adarsh Mall, Plot No.50, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

 

3.      Rai and Sons, Authorized Service Centre, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager, SCO No.60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

 

4.      Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Ltd. through its M.D. /Chairman, SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. 

 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Arshdeep Singh Arora, Counsel for the complainant

                   Sh.Anil Johar, Counsel for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset  make Sony Xperia M2 from OP No.4 vide invoice dated 31.07.2014 for Rs.21,250/-, having warranty of one year. According to the complainant, in August, 2014, due to manufacturing defect in the mobile phone, he started facing problem with the screen, sound, voice echo and blurriness in the camera and he approached OP No.4 who advised him to approach OP No.3. Consequently, he approached OP No.3 who told the complainant that there was a manufacturing defect in the mobile handset as they had received similar complaints in respect of the phone in question and they assured the complainant to continue to use the said set for some more time and further assured him that the same shall be replaced with a new one as and when a new handset of the same make and model is received. Accordingly, after a long wait  on 22.12.2014, the complainant again approached OP No.3 with the same complaint and on checking the mobile phone, they told the complainant that it would seeks instruction for replacement from the company within a few days.  It has further been alleged that on 21.02.2015 he again approached OP No.3 to know the fate of his mobile handset who told him that they will repair the same and asked him to collect the same after 3-4 days. Thereafter he visited OP No.3 a number to times but it put off the matter by making lame excuses and finally on 11.03.2015, OP No.3 just to wriggle out of the situation returned the mobile handset to him by only changing the front cover, back cover and software without even considering the actual complaint.  He raised the issue with regard to the manufacturing defect in the mobile phone which caused him a lot of monetary loss, nuisance and harassment and requested either to replace the same or to refund its price but the OPs refused to replace the handset and rather misbehaved with him. It has further been averred that he could not use the mobile phone for past 8 months and has suffered a lot because of inaction on the part of the OPs.  Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure C-2) upon the OPs but to   no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Opposite Parties, in their written statement, stated that the complainant approached them on 22.12.2014 with the loudspeaker and the same was delivered to him 27.12.2014 after rectification of the defect. It has further been pleaded that thereafter the complainant approached the OPs on 21.02.2015 with the microphone problem and display flickers/can’t take picture. Thereafter, the HW Part Defective (Sub Board Assy, Front Cover LCM TP Assy and Battery Cover Assy Black) were replaced and the same was delivered to him on 11.03.2015. It has further been pleaded that the parts of the mobile handset have been replaced free of costs and the OPs have honoured the terms and conditions of the warranty from their side each time when the complainant approached to them.  It has been stated that the complainant has been offered a replacement or a paid upgrade as a gesture of goodwill vide offer letter dated 11.06.2015 but he refused to accept the offer.   It has further been pleaded that the in order to ensure the longevity of the phone, instructions in the user’s manual have to be strictly followed and it is the complainant who failed to maintain the same in good condition. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record alongwith the written submissions.
5.           Admittedly, the mobile phone in question has been repaired twice by the OPs and certain parts of the same have also been changed by the OPs under the warranty period to make the phone functional. However, despite changing the certain parts of the mobile phone in question, the same was not working properly meaning thereby that the same was suffering from some inherent manufacturing defect and that was only the reason that the OPs have agreed to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one.  The specific stand of the complainant is that despite giving assurances for replacement, the OPs have failed to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one and that is why he has to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum for redressal of his grievance.
6.           On the other hand, the stand of the OPs in their written statement is that the complainant was offered the replacement or a paid upgrade as a gesture of goodwill vide offer letter dated 11.06.2015 (Annexure-B) but he refused to accept the same.  However, this fact has been vehemently denied by the complainant by stating that no such offer letter was ever sent to him by the OPs.  In these circumstances, the onus to prove the delivery of the said letter to the complainant was upon the OPs but they failed to prove the same by placing on record any cogent and reliable evidence in this regard. Moreover, the OPs have failed to prove the mode by which the said letter has been allegedly sent to the complainant. It seems that the OPs have tried to escape from their liability by placing reliance upon the letter (Annexure B), which was never sent to the complainant and as such no credence can be placed upon the said letter.  In this view of the matter, non-replacing of the mobile handset in question with a new one despite giving assurances to the complainant for its replacement by the OPs certainly amount to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part .
7.           The complainant in the present complaint is seeking refund of price of the mobile phone in question because as the Opposite Parties failed to replace the mobile handset in question despite their assurances and service of the legal notice (Annexure C-2), he purchased another mobile set.  Though law on the point is well settled that if a defect can be rectified by repair/replacement of the defective part(s), there is no need to change the whole machine. Since the Opposite Parties have failed to replace the mobile handset in question despite their assurances and service of the legal notice and, therefore,  the complainant was justified in purchasing another mobile set because in today’s times mobile phone has become very integral part of our life in communicating with others.  Therefore, we are of view that no purpose would be served in ordering for replacement of the mobile phone now.
8.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-
   1. To refund the invoice price of the mobile in question to the complainant i.e. Rs.21,250/-;
   2. To pay Rs.7,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;
   3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.
9.           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
10.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16.11.2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER