Delhi

East Delhi

CC/536/2015

RAKESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

27 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 536/15

 

Shri Rakesh

R/o 6/261, Khichri Pur

Delhi – 110 091                                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Mehar Computer & Peripherals

GF 2/94, Meghdoot Building

Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019

 

2. Immortal Services

Off.: 1/15, 1^st Floor, Lalita Park

Opp. Metro Pillar No. 26, Laxmi Nagar

New Delhi – 110 092

 

3. Sony India Pvt. ltd.

A-31, Mohan cooperative Industrial Estate

Mathura Road, new Delhi – 110 044                                          ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 27.07.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 27.11.2017

Judgment Passed on: 04.12.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by the complainant, Shri Rakesh, against Mehar Computer & Peripherals, Nehru Place (OP-1), Immortal Services, Lalita Park (OP-2) and M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) with allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

2.        Facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia Z on 25.06.2014 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs. 27,000/- vide S. No. 5006 and IME no. 3556605-831738-8.  After few months, the said phone got damaged due to water ingression.  The complainant deposited the phone at the service centre on 7^th April 2015. 

            It was stated that the complainant received a call from the service centre that they will repair the phone within 7-10 days and estimate repair cost would be Rs. 5,400/-.  On 17^th April, 2015, the complainant submitted the amount, but he received the phone after 7^th May 2015.  For the next 4 days, complainant faced lots of problems in the phone i.e. phone was getting auto switch off, it was heating and visibility of network was zero. He visited the office of OP on 12.05.2015 (as per job sheet the date is 21.05.2015) and submitted his phone for repair.  On 2^nd June, 2015, he received the phone with same problems.  He again submitted his mobile on the same day. 

            He sent emails dated 03.06.15, 04.06.15, 07.06.15, 08.06.15, and letter on 17.06.15, but he did not get his phone back.   Hence, he has prayed for directions to OP to refund Rs. 27,000/-, being the cost of the mobile; Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            Complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 25.06.2014, emails, job sheet dated 17.05.2015, letter dated 17.06.2015 and postal receipts alongwith complaint. 

3.        Reply was filed on behalf of OP-1, 2 and 3 in which they have stated that OP-3 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and they cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.  As per User Guide, provided alongwith the handset, claim is not maintainable as company does not provide any warranty against the defect caused due to dust and water.  It was submitted that the complainant had approached OP-2 on 21.05.2015, when the warranty period was about to expire in  just one month’s time, but considering the complainant to be a valued customer, issue was resolved free of cost. 

            It was further stated that the handset was damaged due to Liquid Ingression, therefore, an estimate of Rs. 4,697/- + Rs. 350/- + taxes was shared with the complainant for repairs and replacement of necessary part and that too delay was on the part of the complainant in giving approval for repairs.

            It was stated that on 21.05.2015, complainant again submitted his phone with another issue which was resolved.  The complainant again approached OPs with an issue which was resolved, but the complainant refused to collect the handset and filed a complaint before this Forum.  Other facts have also been denied.

            OP has annexed true copy of Board Resolution, retail invoice and copy of warranty terms alongwith reply.  

4.        In rejoinder to the WS filed on behalf of OP, the contents of the WS were denied. 

5.             Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he deposed on oath.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

            OP examined Shri Priyank Chauhan, who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as authority letter of   OP-1 and OP-2 authorizing OP-3 to contest the present matter on their behalf (Annexure R-1), copy of Board Resolution dated 07.02.2014 (Annexure R-2), copy of bill dated 25.06.2014 (Annexure R-3), copy of warranty terms provided by OP-3 to the complainant (Annexure R-4) and photograph evidencing liquid damage (Annexure R-5).  

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and have perused the material placed on record as none has appeared on behalf of OP to argue.  The handset is with the service centre i.e. OP-2 is not a disputed fact.  It has been stated by the OPs that the complainant was informed number of times to collect the handset, but they have placed nothing on record to substantiate the same.  The handset was out of warranty due to liquid ingression and the same was to be repaired subject to charges to be paid by the complainant, thus the fact being that OP-2 failed to deliver the repaired handset to the complainant despite the fact that   Rs. 5,400/- were charged on account of repairs.  This definitely amounts to deficiency in service.

            The complainant has sought for refund of the cost of the mobile, which cannot be allowed as complainant has used the handset for         10 months, further he has not placed on record any evidence to prove manufacturing defect in support of his allegations.  No liability can be fastened on OP-1, as he is merely a retailer and OP-3 is the manufacturer.  Hence, we direct OP-2 to hand over the repaired handset to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order.  We also award Rs. 4,500/- as compensation for mental harassment inclusive of litigation expenses, which shall be paid by OP-2.    

              Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President