Haryana

Panchkula

cc/164/2014

suresh kumar saini. - Complainant(s)

Versus

sony india pvt.ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Piyush Mittal

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

Suresh Kumar Saini S/o Jaipal Saini, R/o House No.1322, Sector-10, Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, 110044 (website-

2.         Ultimate Services, Showroom No.55, Sector-5, Swastik Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, Haryana through its Manager/Principal Officer.

3.         Three Vee Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office SCO No.461-462, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its proprietor.

            2^nd Address:

            SCO 1028-1029, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its proprietor.

                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER ROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Coram:                       Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                  Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                  Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

For the Parties:         Mr.Piyush Mital, Adv., for the complainant.

                  Mr. Rohan Mittal, Adv for the Ops.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal,  President)

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that he purchased a Sony Xperia ZL mobile bearing IMEI No.355387050341595 for Rs.25,000/- vide invoice No.11143 dated 15.01.2014 with warranty of one year from the Op No.3 as the Op No.3 assured the complainant that the mobile products of Op No.1 were of the best quality and the Ops were providing the best products & services for the last so many years. The Op No.1 further assured that the Op No.1 has a reputed service center at Panchkula i.e. Op No.2 and in case, if the mobile gave any problem, the complainant can approach the Ops within the warranty period. After some time, the complainant noticed vertical lines on display during recording videos and while playing recorded videos. The complainant informed the Op No.3 about the video problem who told the complainant that they were receiving similar complaints from various customers and suggested to approach the Op No.2 i.e. authorized service center of OP No.1. On 09.07.2014, the complainant visited the office of Op No.2 and told them about the appearance of vertical lines on display during recording videos and while playing recorded videos on the mobile phone. The employee of Op No.2 asked the complainant to submit the mobile alongwith the bill so that their technical persons could resolve the issue and the complainant submitted his phone with the Op No.2. But the Op No.2 issued manual service job sheet on 09.07.2014 without mentioning any job number or ticket ID nor was any standby phone issued to the complainant by the OP No.2 even after requested by the complainant. The Op No.2 informed the complainant that the issue in the phone could not be resolved. The complainant told the Op No.2 that the mobile phone is in warranty/guarantee period and asked either to resolve the issue or refund the full amount of the phone. The Op No.2 told that they would raise the issue with the OP No.1 and would get it replaced within 4-5 days. After that a couple of times, the complainant visited the office of Op No.2 for replacement of mobile phone but the OP No.2 told that it would take more time. The complainant requested the OP No.2 to issue the computer generated service job sheet with job number and ticket ID as the mobile of the complainant was with the Op No.2 since 09.07.2014 but the Op No.2 never issued the same. On 21.07.2014, the complainant contacted the customer care number and they informed that ticket ID and job number has been raised on 14.07.2014 instead of 09.07.2014. The complainant asked the Op No.2 but it has no answer for such deliberate deceptive conduct. The complainant raised the issue through email but to no avail. On 26.07.2014, the complainant contacted customer care who informed the complainant that they have already issued Xperia Z mobile phone as replacement on 22.07.2014 but the complainant was surprised that the replacement has been issued in the name of complainant but still he has not received the same from Op No.2. The complainant contacted the Op No.2 through telephone who informed that the complainant could collect his replaced mobile phone and the Op No.2 gave no answer why the replacement set was not provided to the complainant on 22.07.2014. On 26.07.2014, the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 to collect the replaced mobile and the Op No.2 gave Sony Xperia ZL set as replacement to the complainant vide serial No.355387050061219 and swap model C6502. The Op No.2 issued retail invoice/cash memo bill dated 26.07.2014 wherein it was mentioned that the ticket ID and job number has been generated on 14.07.2014 whereas the complainant submitted his phone with the Op No.2 on 09.07.2014. The complainant checked the replaced mobile and found the same error i.e. appearance of vertical lines on display during recording videos and while playing recorded videos. The complainant informed the Op No.2 about the same error in the replaced set also which the original set was therein. The employee of Op No.2 checked/tested the replaced handset and found the vertical lines on display. The Op No.2 asked the complainant to submit the replaced set again so that their technical support team could resolve the issue. The complainant again submitted his mobile phone with the Op No.2 on 26.07.2014. The Op No.2 did not issue any job sheet and told that they would inform the complainant about the status of the mobile phone after few days. The complainant asked for job sheet and the Op No.2 told that the complainant could get the job sheet on 28.07.204. The complainant told the Op No.2 that he would not leave the premises without job sheet and the Op No.2 issued manual job sheet dated 26.07.2014 with all the relevant details and asked the complainant to collect the computer generated job sheet on 28.07.2014. On 28.07.2014, the complainant was informed by the Op No.2 that the job No.W114072804082 has been generated and on 30.07.2014, the Op No.2 again informed the complainant to visit the office of Op No.2 with the copy of bill as they have again generated new job order. The complainant asked as to why the earlier job order was closed but the Op No.2 gave no truthful answer. The complainant with no other option submitted the copy of bill to Op No.2 on 31.07.2014 and the Op No.2 issued the ticket ID dated 31.07.2014 whereas the complainant submitted the mobile phone on 26.07.2014. When the complainant objected to the same, the Op No.2 told that ticket ID date would be corrected on their part. Thereafter, the complainant inquired about the status of the phone but OP No.2 replied that they have no update as their network was not working. The complainant contacted the Op No.1 through emails but there was no certain reply or assurance from the Op No.1. In the month of August, 2014, the complainant enquired about the status of the phone from Ops No.1 and 2 but they did not give any certain reply. On 19.08.2014, the Op No.2 informed the complainant to collect the mobile phone from the office of Op No.2. The complainant visited the Op No.2 and the Op No.2 handed over unrepaired mobile phone to the complainant. The complainant was also handed the retail invoice/cash memo dated 19.08.2014 stating ASC comments as RUR-Return Un-repaired. The complainant inquired as to why the fault has not been repaired, the Op No.2 told that their technicians were unable to resolve the issue and after consultation with Op No.1, they were returning the mobile set un-repaired. The complainant told the Op No.2 that the mobile set was in warranty/guarantee period, therefore, he wanted refund of his mobile. On this, the Op No.2 asked the complainant to contact sony officials. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared and filed reply by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 is engaged in the business of distributing & marketing of mobile phones and other electronic goods under the brand name of “Sony”. It is submitted that an impeccable position in the mobile phone industry in India. It is submitted that the mobile phones of Sony were sold to customers through a network of its authorized dealers and after sales service on the mobile phones were provided through a network of its authorized service centers across the country. It is submitted that the liability of the Ops lie strictly in accordance with the terms & conditions of the warranty provided by it on its products and the Ops could not be held liable for claims falling outside the scope of warranty. The terms & conditions provided by the Op No.1 to the complainant is following as:

“If during the warranty period, this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in design, materials or workmanship, Sony authorized distributors or service partners, in the country/region* where you purchased the Product, will, at their option, either repair, replace or refund the purchase price of the Product in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated herein”

It is submitted that the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia XL mobile phone vide model No.C6502 and IMEI No.355387050341595 on 15.01.2014. It is submitted that after using the handset for a period of almost five months, the complainant visited the authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 with the complaint of camera focus/sharpness on 24.06.2014. It is submitted that the handset was inspected, a software update was carried out and the handset was found to be working perfectly so the handset was delivered to the complainant on 30.06.2014. It is submitted that the complainant again approached the Op No.2 on 14.07.2014 with the complaint of lines in camera while recording video. It is submitted that the complainant was requested to deposit the handset and he was informed that he would be provided with a standby handset for the period that his handset remained with the Op No.2. The Op No.2 made an entry in the system for provision of a standby handset, however, the complainant stated that he did not require such standby handset and therefore, no standby handset was provided to the complainant but the representative of the Op No.2 inadvertently omitted to remove that fact from the system. It is submitted that on 26.07.2014, a swap of the handset was provided to the complainant. It is submitted that on 31.07.2014, the complainant approached the OP No.2 with the same problem as earlier. It is submitted that the complainant was requested to deposit the handset and was informed that the handset would be sent to the Head Office for testing in order to ascertain the source of the problem. After a few days, the complainant was informed that the handset was working perfectly well as a software was updated and was requested to collect the handset. It is submitted that after 31.07.2014, no complaint was received from the complainant whereas the Ops received the notice from this Forum. The Op No.1 contacted the complainant telephonically in order to settle the grievance of the complainant. It is submitted that on 13.10.2014, the Op No.1 has sent a written communication to the complainant wherein the OP No.1 made an offer to the complainant that to exchange the handset with new handset of the same or similar value or to exchange the current handset with any handset from the Xperia Range by paying the difference in the MRP. It is submitted that the Op No.1 has also offered to refund the purchase value of the handset to the complainant but the complainant has not accepted the offers of the Op No.1. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The counsel for the complainant tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A  alongwith document Annexure C-1 to C-5 and C6/1 to C6/21 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. It is evident from the bill/cash memo (Annexure C-1) coupled with an affidavit of the complainant that he purchased Sony Xperia ZL mobile hand set vide IMEI No.355387050341595 on 15.01.2014 from the Op No.3 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with warranty of one year. After some days of its purchase, the hand set started giving problem. The Ops admitted in their written statement, the complainant approached the Op No.2 alleging a problem of vertical lines on display during recording videos and while playing recorded videos (Annexure C-3). The mobile of the complainant was replaced with new one with swap IMEI No.355387050061219 vide cash/invoice dated 26.07.2014. But there was same problem in the replaced mobile and it was also submitted with Op No.2 on 31.07.2014 (Annexure C-4) which was returned to the complainant on 19.08.2014 (Annexure C-5) with comments RUR-Return Un-repaired. Accordingly, it cannot deny its responsibility towards the quality of product being manufacturer.
6. In the present complaint, the complainant has rightly prayed for refund of the amount paid towards the cost of hand set as he was deprived of its usage inspite of spending such a handsome amount for the purchase of the hand set. After repair/software upgraded even replacement of mobile admitted by the Ops in their reply and further offer (Annexure R-3) of exchange of hand set with similar value model or exchange of product with any current lineup Sony Xperia Mobile by paying MRP to MRP difference, the new product comes with normal full one year warranty or refund of product purchase value shows that hand set had inherent defect, which could not be rectified despite service. The demand of the complainant for the refund of the price value of the hand set is due to the manufacturing defect in the hand set and proves from product quality as well as poor services.
7. After having considered the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the non-providing of proper service and non-rectification of problem in the hand set clearly proves the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The offer given by the Ops for the exchange of hand set has stated above that too during the pendency of the complaint also proves deficiency in service on their part.
8. Resultantly, we find merit in the complaint, therefore, the same is allowed accordingly. The Ops jointly and severely directed as under:-
   1. To refund of Rs.25,000/- being the cost of the mobile hand set in question to the complainant alongiwth interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 15.01.2014 till realization.
   2. To make the payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
   3. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
9. This order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

18.02.2015       ANIL SHARMA          ANITA KAPOOR                 DHARAM PAL

                       MEMBER                    MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                                  DHARAM PAL 

                                                                  PRESIDENT