OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.80/2015
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
Sri Prasanjit Medhi -Complainant
Son of late Mahesh Medhi
C/O Morph Omstitute, Ganeshguri,Guwahati
Resident of House No. 14, Kanaklata Path,
Bhangagarh, Guwahati-7
-vs-
1) Sony India Pvt.Ltd. -Opp.parties
Having registered office at
A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, Delhi-110044.
2) Customer Relation Manager-East
Sony India Pvt.Ltd.
White House, 119 Park Street
2nd Floor, Block 2D, Kolkata-781003.
3) Tech Shop,
Sony India Authorized Service Centre,
Rajgorh Main Road, Opposite -AV.Complex,
Guwahati-781003.
Appearance-
Learned advocates Mr.Nabajit Bharali for the complainant .
Date of argument- 06-09-2017
Date of judgment- 27-12-2017
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Sri Prasenjit Medhi against Sony India Pvt.Ltd.,Delhi, Customer Relation Manager, East Sony India Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata and Tech Shop, Rajgorh Main Road, Guwahati was admitted on 16.10.2015 and notices were properly served upon them, but they did not turn up and being compelled this forum vide order dtd.28.2.17 directed that the case against the opp.parties will proceed on exparte. Thereafter, the complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and his counsel ld. advocate Mr.N.Bharali filed his written exparte argument on 25.7.17. Thereafter on 6.9.17 ld. advocate Mr.Nabajit Bharali forwarded his oral exparte argument on behalf of the complainant. After perusing the case record, the evidence adduced and the argument forwarded by the ld. Counsel of the complainant, we deliver the judgment today, which is as below-
2) The gist of the complaint is that the complainant had purchased one Sony Xperia Z1 mobile handset from Mr.Digital Solution by Invoice No. DS/ V3/ T2149/ 13/14 dtd. 5.3.14 on 5.3.14 which bears code No. C.6902 and IMEI No. 3580940527199200 at a price of Rs.36,000/-. After using for one month, it developed overheating and started causing disturbance in receiving phone calls and also failed to display in the said handset and found faced the aforesaid problems in the handset, he went to authorized service centre of Opp.party No.1 at Guwahati on many occasions; and the said authorized service centre , on the plea of correcting the defects returned the handset to him giving assurance that there were no problem in further. But the same problem occurred again and he had to approach said service centre again for repairing for gradually the handset became more troubles one causing problems of overheating and loss of display in the screen and ultimately on 13.11.14 it became inactive and dead and then he went to the service centre and deposited it for necessary repair and Opp.Party No.3 vide Job No. W114111300538 issued service job sheet to him and checked the handset and commented that charging pin of the handset is broken and as such no power can be supplied to it , which caused dead or lack of backup power and that the said problem cannot be repaired . He , after having failed to get his handset repaired by Opp.Party No.3, requested its service personnel to replace the handset stating that it has manufacturing defect, but official of Opp.Party No.3 refused to entertain his request. The model of handset he purchased , which is Xperia Z1 mobile handset, is having two charging points – one is through the internal power point point/socket and another is charging externally through magnetic charging dock charger. He being dissatisfied with the action and conduct of Opp.Party No.3 sent several e.mails to Opp.Party no.1 & 2 in their website question. in @support .sonymobile.com , but he failed to get any satisfactory reply from them till date. The opinion of Opp.Party No.3 proved to be false and baseless as the mobile handset did not take charge through the magnetic charging docket dot charger also and this fact also proves that the handset was defective on the day of purchasing it. The opp.parties sold the said defective handset knowing fully well that it was a defective one. The handset is found internal machinery problems and same was checked by the opp.parties and the opp.parties did not rectify the said internal problem within warranty period. He also sent advocate notice to the opp.parties on 25.2.15 and opp.party No.2 sent a reply to the legal notice that the charging pin of the handset was found broken by the owner and that is why handset cannot be treated under warranty. This opinion of Opp.party No.2 is totally uncalled for as it has internal problems which is established by the fact of failure to take charge through magnetic charging dock charger also. For selling the handset retaining manufacturing defect, the opp.parties are liable under the law of deficiency of service . The cause of action, had first arose on 5.3.14, 13.11.14, 27.12.14 and on 5.3.15. He prays for passing order directing opp.parties to replacing the handset with a new one of the said model and also to pay him Rs.50, 000/- for compensation for causing harassment to him and for paying cost of the case and giving through reliefs deemed fit.
3) We have perused the complaint as well as the evidence adduced by the complainant. From Ex.1, it is established that the complainant had purchased one mobile handset being Sony Xperia Z1 from Mr.Digital Solution by Invoice No. DS/V3/T2149/13/14 dtd. 5.3.14 which bears code No. C.6902 and IMEI No. 3580940527199200 at a price of Rs.36,000/-.
4) It is also seen from the evidence of the complainant that after one month of purchasing of said mobile, it showed overheating and failure of display in the screen and he then went to Opp.Party No.3 the authorized service centre of Opp.Party No.1 (Sony India Pvt.Ltd.). The complainant went to Opp.Party No.3 , the authorized service centre of Opp.Party No.1 for correcting the defect, but Opp.Party No.3 returned the handset stating that the defect was rectified and it would not show any problem in future, but for the second day it showed some problem and again he went to Opp.Party No.3 for repairing of the handset, but the said handset gradually became more troublesome and then he went to Opp.Party No.3 again on 13.11.14. Opp.Party No.3 also received the handset vide Job Sheet No. W114111300538 and checked the handset and commented that charging pin of it was broken. It is also found that , thereafter the complainant had written to Opp.Party No.1 the manufacturer of the said handset through his counsel on 25.2.15 which is Ex.12 and then Opp.Party No.1 & 2 after receiving the said legal notice sent a letter to the complainant and Ex.15 is the envelop of the said letter, and through that letter Opp.Party No.2 alleges that charging pin of the handset was found broken by the engineer and as such handset cannot be treated under warranty and Ex.14 is the said reply. Thus, it is crystal clear that the handset concerned was not functioning within the period of warranty and the complainant in due time reported the matter to Opp.Party No.3, the authorized service centre of Opp.Party No.1 and in every occasion Opp.Party No.3 returned the handset stating that the defect was repaired, but in all the times the mobile handset was found not functioning and finally he deposited the handset to Opp.Party No.3 on 13.11.14 and Opp.Party No.3 issued job sheet to him and Opp.Party No.3 also commented that charging pin of handset is broken and as such it cannot get supply of current, which fault the mobile handset dead. This thing is also repeated by Opp.Party No.2 in their letter which is reply to the legal notice dtd. 25.3.15. Thus, it is established that Opp.Party No.1& 2 side also knew that the said mobile handset is not functioning as it was not receiving charge from the line of the current. In this case the opp.party side has not contested the case , nor taken any step to prove their plea that the charging pin was broken and it was broken due to external cause, which caused the handset dead. While the plea of the complainant is that the charging pin of the handset was in broken state which is a manufacturing defect and due to that defect it fails to take charge through the charging pin as well as through its magnetic charger. The complainant side exhibited the handset alongwith two chargers. Ex.2 is the concerned handset, Ex.3 is the normal charger attached with the handset and Ex. 4 is the magnetic charger supplied to him for the said handset. During argument, this forum examined the handset and the chargers and it is found that it cannot receive charge through normal charger as well as magnetic charger. Logically, if we examine the matter, we may say, if the charging pin is broken, then it cannot receive charge through the normal charger, but it must have to take charge from the magnetic charger given with the handset . In magnetic charger, charging pin is not required what is required is charging doc, which the hand-set has that doc,yet it failed to receive charge through that magnetic charger, that fact infers that the handset has manufacturing defect internally, and that is why it fails to receive charge from both chargers . Therefore, we have to hold that the charging pin of the handset was not broken, but it has defect internally, which is manufacturing defect and therefore, it fails to take charge through both the systems. It is already found that the defect was detected after one month of the use and the complainant raised the matter before the opp.parties including the manufacturer within warranty period, but the opp.parties neither repaired the said handset , nor replaced it with a new one. As it has manufacturing defect in the handset, the opp.parties are liable to replace the handset with new one or to pay to the value of the handset which is Rs.36,000/- to the complainant with a interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing this complaint (16.10.15). This conduct on the part of Opp.Party No.1, 2 & 3 are found to have caused harassment to the complainant. Therefore, we are of opinion that the opp.parties are liable to pay another amount of Rs.5,000/- for causing harassment to the complainant.
5) Because of what has been discussed as above, we hold that the complainant has a prima facie case against the opp.parties and he has also succeeded to establish his case. Therefore, the complaint against all three opp.parties is allowed on exparte and the opp.parties are directed to refund Rs.36,000/- which is the value of the said handset to the complainant with interest @6% from 16.10.15 and also to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to him as well as Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceeding, to which they are jointly and severally liable. They are further directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days, in default, other two amounts shall also carry interest in the same rate. They may take back the hand-set after satisfying the award.
Given under our hands and seals on this day of 27th December, 2017
(Smti A. D. Lahkar) (Md.S.Hussain)
Member President
