Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/63

A.S.GrewalAdv. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.P.Singh Adv.

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 63 of 25.01.2016

Date of Decision    :  11.11.2016

              

A.S.Grewal, Advocate, Chamber NO.813, 8^th Floor, Lawyer Chambers Complex, District Courts, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.Sony India Pvt.Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Matahura Road, New Delhi-110044 (India) through its Director/Authorized Signatory .

2.M/s G.K.Mobile World, Video Market, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana-141001 through its Prop./Authorized signatory.

3.Aroma Instant Service, SCO 39-G, LGF B.R.S.Nagar, Opp.Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana-141001 through its Manager.

4.Vaneet, Manager of Aroma Instant Service, SCO 39-G, LGF B.R.S.Nagar, Opp.Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana-141001 through its Manager.

                                                                             …..Opposite parties

  (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :        Sh.D.P.Singh, Advocate

For Ops                         :        Sh.Jagdeep Pal Singh, Advocate

 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant purchased one mobile set of make Sony, model Xperia M4 Aqua having IMEI No.352198071810325 from OP2 vide bill/invoice No.2305 dated 23.9.2015 after paying a sum of Rs.21,000/- in cash. That mobile set was sold with express guarantee that the same will be a genuine and defect free product. Few days   after purchase, the said mobile set developed many defects, which interrupted               the working of the mobile set and was against the express warranty given by the OP. Details of the defects given below:-

a.Proximity sensor of the mobile was not working during calls.

b.The mobile set was getting heated to abnormal level during operations.

c.Answering notification was not working and it is unable to answer a call.

d.Dual sim call option was also not working properly.

e.Camera of the mobile was not clear.

f.Facebook video could not be played properly.

g.Mic of the mobile phone is also defective and the voice of the complainant could not be heard at other end clearly.

h.The mobile is getting hanged during multiple operation of applications.

Complainant thereafter approached OP2, who asked him to approach OP3, the service centre. Thereafter, the complainant number of times updated his phone, but all in vain. Complainant approached OP3 again on 28.11.2015 at about 4:40 P.M. and disclosed about the defects. OP3 called upon the complainant to deposit the mobile set with them and they will update the mobile set. Promise was made to return the handset to the complainant on next date and accordingly, the complainant deposited the mobile set with OP3 on 28.11.2015 vide ticket ID No.15112804494. On next day visit by the complainant with OP3, latter disclosed that they will hand over the mobile set after necessary repairs after a week. However, OP3 lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and after lapse of one month, they handed over the mobile set to the complainant  by replacing certain parts of the same. Assurance was given to the complainant that mobile set will now be free from defects. As the mobile set was not repairable and as such, it is claimed that Ops are under obligation to replace the mobile set with new one. Notices were sent to OP3 and OP4, but to no effect and as such, complainant claims that he has suffered lot of harassment. Even OP3 and OP4 kept the mobile set with them for one month without informing the date as and when the defects will be resolved. So, complainant had to make repeated visits. Legal notice dated 7.1.2016 was served by the complainant through counsel. Refund of Rs.21,000/-, the price of the mobile set sought by pleading deficiency in service. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1 lac even sought. Interest @18% per annum from the date of claim also sought. In addition thereto, litigation expenses claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1 to OP4, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set for consideration of Rs.21,000/- on 28.9.2015. Detailed demonstration of the features, functions and applications was given by the OP1 and after satisfying himself qua the condition of the mobile set, the same was purchased by the complainant. OP1 provides the limited warranty of one year on its products, but liability is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. As per those clauses of the warranty, if the product fails to operate during warranty under normal use and service or due to defects in materials or workmanship, then Sony authorized distributors or service partners will  at their option either  repair or to replace the product in accordance with the stipulated conditions. Warranty does not cover the failure of the product due to normal wear and tear or due to misuse or due to accident or modification or adjustment or acts of God or damage resulting from liquid. Complainant for the first time approached OP3 on 28.11.2015 raising issue of heating and charging problems of above said mobile set. OP3 inspected the mobile set and carried out the necessary replacement of issue creating parts and delivered back the same to the complainant. Mobile handset handed over by the complainant having scratches, the guard was cracked and condition of the mobile set was dirty which clearly reflects that the mobile set was roughly used by the complainant. Problems developed due to rough use by the complainant. Despite that Ops carried out the necessary replacement of the parts/repair. Complainant instead of appreciating the efforts made by the Ops of resolving the issues free of cost, preferred this complaint for the reasons best known to him only. Complainant could have got the handset inspected at least once, so that the issue may have been timely diagnosed, but he instead of getting the mobile set inspected, has filed this complaint. Complaint alleged to be filed on baseless allegations with sole object of getting wrongful gain on false allegations. Allegations of deficiency in service denied by claiming that timely action was taken by the Ops for resolving the issue pertaining to the mobile set. It is denied that the complainant has no cause of action against Ops.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Priyank Chauhan along with documents Ex.R1 and to Ex.R1/A to Ex.R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                It is vehemently contended by complainant that despite repeated visits, the mobile set in question has not been repaired and issues referred in detail in para no.4 of the complaint has not been resolved and as such, the complainant entitled for the refund of price amount along with interest. That submission opposed by counsel for Ops by contending that job sheet Ex.C3=Ex.R4 itself establishes that when the mobile set presented by the complainant with the service centre on 28.11.2015, then the condition of the same  reflected as if it was roughly used. After going through job sheet Ex.C3=Ex.R4, it is made out that the condition of the mobile set was dirty and it was having guard crack. So condition of the mobile set reflected in job sheet Ex.C3=Ex.R4 produced by the complainant itself discloses as if the mobile set in question not properly used and that is why, the guard of the same was cracked within two months of its purchase and it became dirty. Rather, in job sheet Ex.C3=Ex.R4 mention of dirty use of the mobile set specifically made and as such, the same reflects that as and when the mobile set presented for the first time for repair with OP3, then it was found to be not properly used. So, it is a case of mishandling of the mobile set by the complainant himself.

7.                Guidelines contained in Ex.R3 provides for handling of the mobile set with care and even they provides that it should be kept in a clean and dust-free place. However, mobile set in question was found dirty as per job sheet Ex.C3=Ex.R4 and as such, the same itself reflects that mobile set was not kept at clear and dust-free place. As guidelines qua safe and efficient use of the mobile set not followed by the complainant himself and as such, fault lay with the complainant in not keeping the mobile set properly.

8.                It is not the case of the complainant that he took the mobile to the service centre again after 28.11.2015 at any time and as such, it is obvious that the complainant issued notice Ex.C4 through postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C8 just for putting pressure because it is not the case of the complainant that Ops refused to provide services to the complainant at any stage after 28.11.2015. Even one of the recommendations for care and safe uses is not to drop, throw or try to bend the product. Question of crack on guard arises only if the mobile set is dropped or thrown and as such, violation of this recommendation of due care and safe use of the product, committed by the complainant himself. As per page no.8 of Ex.R3, if the product during the warranty period fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in design, materials or workmanship, then Sony authorized distributors or service partners will  at their option either repair or replace or refund the purchase price of the product in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. By normal use and service of the product, the guard of the product will not bear the cracks and nor the same will go dirty, if the same kept at clean and safe place always. The same has not been done by the complainant as discussed above and as such, Ops not duty bound to refund the price of the purchased product or replace the same with new one. Warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear or mis-use or failure to use in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product is also the condition stipulated at page no.9 of Ex.R3. It is already found above that the product in question not used or maintained in accordance with the instructions of keeping it at clean and dirt free place and care of its dropping or throwing not taken resulting in cracks on guard and as such, case of the complainant not covered by warranty clauses, due to which, the complainant is not at all entitled for refund of the price or replacement of the mobile set. However, one purchases the mobile for its functioning and as such, if complainant takes the mobile set to service centre or any other authorized service centre i.e.OP3 again, then they will repair the same at earliest. These directions issued because the company as a goodwill gesture should do as much possible for keeping the product in the hands of the customer in working order.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP3 will repair the mobile set in question free of cost, if presented by the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to compensation and litigation costs is passed in view of the above discussion qua failure on part of the complainant with respect to handling and use of the mobile set in question. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                      (Vinod Bala)                     (G.K.Dhir)

                              Member                            President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:11.11.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.