Haryana

Ambala

CC/301/2013

SANJAY SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

MS. S. RASHMI SHARMA

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                           Complaint case no.        : 301 of 2013

                                                           Date of Institution         : 20.11.2013

                                                          Date of decision             :  22.11.2016

          Sanjay Sharma son of Dr. Kali Ram Sharma, resident of house no. 206, Sarla   Niwas, Model Town, Ambala City.  

……. Complainant.

 

 

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

 

2.       The General Manager, Customer Care, Sony Mobile Communication       (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd. 4^th Floor, DAKHA house, 18/17 WEA Karol Bagh, New         Delhi-11005

 

3.       M/s Ambey Electronic Service Sony Authorized Service Station, D/D-14 1^st     Floor, Jail Land, Sector-1, HUDA Market, Ambala City.

 

4.       Mobile Buzz, sister concern of Malik Mobile Prem Nagar, Main Road, Near      Petrol Pump, Ambala City.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

 

Present:       Ms. S. Rashmi Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                   Op No. 3 and 4 proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 26.03.2014.

                   OP No. 1 and 2 proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 10.11.2015.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Sony Mobile (Experia z) from Sony Authorized i.e. OP no. 4 on 20.04.2013 for a sum of Rs. 38,000/- but on 11.10.2013, said mobile was shut down and stop working due to small scratch on the screen of the mobile. Further submitted that due to above said problem, the Op no. 4 sent the mobile to Sony Service Centre i.e. Op no. 3. Op no. 3 and Op no. 3 asked the complainant to deposit a DD  of Rs. 17500/- in favour of Sony Company then after 20 days the complainant will received new set of Sony (Exeria Z), then they gave a ticket I.D. NO. 1310122930 and the complainant contact on telephone to Sony Customer Care, New Delhi i.e. OP NO. 3 and they have send a mail on 17.10.2013 in which they again asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 17,500/-. Moreover, the complainant had purchased the aforesaid mobile to see advertising of this mobile through news papers and in TV through Hollywood Actress Kathrina Kaif in which the mobile is technically so solid that water cannot spoil its working. Further submitted that the Ops failed to exchange the said mobile with new one as the same within warrantee period nor repaired the same and demanding a sum of                             Rs. 17,500/- as half of the payment for changing the mobile of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2                 Upon notice, Ops no. 1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainant approached the authorized service centre of the Op no. 1 with regards to the alleged defects in the mobile phone, then upon inspection by the service engineer of the answering Opposite parties, it was found that the said handset was physically damaged due to external cause as the screen of the phone was broken. The photographs showing clear proof of external damage is annexed herewith as Annexure R-4 and the complainant was informed by the representatives of answering OP that his handset can not be repaired under terms of warranty. Therefore, it is clear that under the terms of warranty, the answering Op are liable to only repair the product, that too only in cases of defect due to improper material or workmanship and not when the defect has arisen due to external causes like accident etc. The Opposite party, in response to the legal notice date 19.10.2013 offered to settle the matter amicably with the complainant by offering to exchange the phone at 50% of the current MRP of said model, but the complainant has refused to accept the offer and replacement was offered only for the sake of customer satisfaction and not towards admission of any liability on the part of the answering Ops. During the course of proceedings, Ops no. 1 and 2 did not bother to appear and they were proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 10.11.2015.

                   Registered notice also issued to Ops No. 3 and 4 but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.03.2014.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-8 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.  It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased one mobile phone of Sony X-peria Z on 11.10.2013 vide invoice Annexure C-1 from the OP no. 1 having 1 year warranty. Complainant to prove this case has placed on record documents Annexure C-7 which is letter dated 28.11.2013 written by Ops to complainant mentioned in that as per job sheet No. W113101202930 the handset is having “TOUCH is BROKEN. However, to ensure satisfaction of complainant Ops were ready to “exchange the mobile set in question with new one with the same model on the payment of 50% of the MRP (50% discount on MRP) and the warrant for the new set will be application from the date of delivery”.  The version of OP that the mobile handset was having problem of ‘Touch is broken’ seems to be genuine but complainant has averted in his complaint that mobile in question was shut down and stop working due to small stretch on the screen of the said mobile but complainant has not specified as to why the stretch came on the screen of the mobile set. On the other hand Ops specific taken the plea that mobile set was received by the their Service Centre i.e. OP no. 3 and they have also mentioned in the job Sheet as mentioned above with the nature of complaint “Touch is broken”. Upon the inspection of the product it was observed Screen was damaged due to external impact that the warranty stands void. Therefore, repair of the subjected set will be only chargeable.

5                 In view of the version taken by the Ops, we are considered view, the handset was broken due to the fault of the complainant either it pressed in the pocked or it has been fallen on the surface. So there is no fault on the party of the Ops. Whenever, the Ops ready to exchange the mobile set in question with new one with same model on the payment of 50% of the MRP. It is also not disputed the mobile set in question become defective within one month after purchased. In the interest of justice as well as proper adjudication of the case and interest of the both parties to avoid further litigation, we direct the Ops to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. The Ops are directed to replace the mobile in question with new one of the same model on payment of 25% of MRP i.e. (75% discount on MRP) from complainant after receiving said 25% of total costs of the mobile in question then the Ops will hand over the new mobile set of same model within 30 days otherwise, OP will pay the 75% of the total amount of the costs with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

                   Complaint is disposed of accordingly with no order to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :22.11.2016                                         Sd/-  

                                                                             (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                    Sd/-    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member