DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1280/2014
No. __________________ Dated : ____________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIDUR GUPTA,
S/o SH. MUKESH GUPTA,
R/oH. No. 86, SUVIDHA KUNJ,
PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI-110034. …COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. M/s SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,
A-31, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDL. ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044.
2. M/s HARI OM RETAIL PVT. LTD.,
OPP.-RITU WEARS, NEAR DEEPALI CHOWK,
ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085.
3. M/s J P ELECTRONICS,
E-1/10, SHOP No. 33, AGGARWAL E-MALL,
SEC.-7, OPP.-N.N. MALL ROHINI,
NEW DELHI-110085. …OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 30.10.2014
Date of Decision: 19.06.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section of 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging
CC No. 1280/2014 Page 1 of 8
that the complainant for his personal use purchased a mobile handset being Sony Experia model no.C6602/YUGA/White vide invoice no. 65 dated 12.04.2013 for Rs.37,990/- from OP-2 which was the product of OP-1 and should have worked and continued to work perfectly for years but within one year only the mobile handset of the complainant did not respond at all and was stuck only at showing “hang on Sony” which is the start-up screen/page. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP-2 for satisfaction of his grievance with respect to his mobile handset on which OP-2 stated to approach OP-3 and on this the complainant stated the said problem to OP-3 which is the authorized service centre of OP-1 and OP-3 stated that it is an internal defect and the complainant will get back a new mobile handset from OP-1 within 15 to 20 days. The complainant further alleged that OP-3 kept the mobile handset and issued a service job sheet dated 12.04.2014 and stated to the complainant to come after 15 to 20 days for taking a replaced new mobile handset and the complainant visited OP-3 after the span of time as requested, however, OP-3 told the complainant that the mobile handset had gone to the company i.e. OP-1 and the new mobile handset will be received in some days and as and when the new one is received, OP-3 stated that it will intimate the same to the complainant, however, the complainant did not receive any call either from OP-3 or from OP-1 and since the handing over of the mobile handset to OP-3, the complainant has been regularly
CC No. 1280/2014 Page 2 of 8
making visits but OP-3 on one pretext or the other avoiding to give the new mobile handset to the complainant in replacement of the defective mobile handset of the complainant and despite the complainant making requests, OPshave shown utter disregard to his requests. In the month of July-2014, the complainant visited OP-3 where OP-3 shouted and abused the complainant and had even stated to the complainant that the complainant will not get the mobile handset as the copy of bill given by the complainant was not genuine and the complainant stated to OP-3 to give the same thing in writing and asked OP-3 to return the mobile handset and on this OP-3 mellowed down and the complainant had then gauged the intentions of OP-3 which was only to avoid its liability and responsibility and the complainant demanded his mobile handset back and OP-3 stated that the mobile handset was not with OP-3 and stated that the same had been sent to OP-1 so that new mobile handset but the complainant could not believe the words of OP-3, after seeing its conduct and hence, insisted on his mobile handset and on the refusal of OP-3, the complainant threatened to call the police. The complainant further alleged that on production of the initial mobile handset of the complainant, the complainant was shocked as OP-3 had broken the screen of the mobile handset which was not at all broken when the same was given to OP-3 and OP-3 admitted that it was due to mishandling in service centre that the screen of the mobile handset of the complainant broke and
CC No. 1280/2014 Page 3 of 8
therefore, OP-3 did not send the same for replacement with new one. The complainant further alleged that after seeing the mobile handset, the complainant realized the reason for such long delay of about 3 months and hence stated to OP-3 to either give new mobile handset in a week or the complainant will take appropriate legal action, on this OP-3 assured the complainant of new mobile handset in place of the old one and the complainant again visited OP-3, to inquire about the new mobile handset but OP-3 refused to give new mobile handset and stated that the mobile handset with broken screen cannot be replaced with a new one and stated that it be taken back by the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent legal notice dated 17.09.2014 through his Counsel to OPs and OPs are guilty of deficiency in service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint and prayed for direction to declare OPs are guilty of providing defective mobile handset to the complainant and engaging themselves in unfair trade practice and are also negligent and deficient in the service towards the complainant, to direct OPs to jointly or severally to replace the mobile handset of the complainant which is with OP-3 with a new one of same model or in the alternative, direct to OPs jointly or severally to return the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.37,990/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. April-2014 till the date of payment to the complainant as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony and pain.
CC No. 1280/2014 Page 4 of 8
3. OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed reply and submitted that the there is no negligence on the part of OPs and hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. OP-1 further submitted that work order no. W114041203241 dated 12.04.2014 issued by OP-3 for hanging/freeze problem, repair action software upgrade and delivered on 12.04.2014 and further submitted that the mobile handset was delivered to the complainant as per his satisfaction and the next job sheet created on the same date when the complainant approached OPs once again on the same date vide work order no. W114041204103 dated 12.04.2014, ASC: JP Electronics, Delhi symptom “cannot power on (phone is dead)” and repair action: “liquid ingresses ser (symptom pictures attached)” delivered on 12.04.2014 and the set was provided to the complainant in working condition and hence there is no unfair trade practice on part of OPs.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the version of OP-1 and re-affirmed his case which has been taken in the complaint.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. 65 of Rs.37,990/- dated 12.04.2013 issued by OP-2, copy of service job sheet no. 14041204103 dated 12.04.2014 issued by OP-3 and copy of legal notice dated 17.09.2014 sent by the complainant through his Counsel to OPs by speed post.
CC No. 1280/2014 Page 5 of 8
6. On the other hand, Ms. Meena Bose, Executive of OP-1 filed her affidavit in evidence and denied the case of the complainant. OP-1 also filed copy of certified true copy of resolution, copy of terms & conditions and copy of letter dated 14.04.2015 sent by OP-1 to the complainant with effect that OP-1 is ready to exchange the handset of the complainant at 80% cost of new modal’s maximum retail price. OP-1 has also filed written arguments.
7. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on following authorities:
i) In F.A. No.314 of 2014 in case entitled M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. decided by Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh on 22.09.2014.
8. This forum has considered the case of the parties in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the parties. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant.
9. OP-1 being the manufacturer is under a legal obligation to rectify the defect which has arisen in the handset and is also under a legal and moral responsibility to sell such products in the market after their complete check-up. From the evidence led by the complainant it appears that the defect in the mobile phone has not been rectified by OP-3 which is the authorized service centre of OP-1 and in fact due to mis-handling of the mobile handset by OP-3 the same has
CC No. 1280/2014 Page 6 of 8
been damaged and broken and so was not sent to OP-1 for replacement by OP-3. It shows that there is no genuineness in the defence of OP-1 and cannot be believed and further shows that there is an inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Accordingly, OP-1 & OP-3being the manufacturer and authorized service centre are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
10. Accordingly, OP-1& OP-3 jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- being the depreciated amount of the mobile handset on return of all the accessories and bill by the complainant.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,000/- as litigation expenses.
11. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1& OP-3jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date receiving this order failing which OP-1 & OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 & OP-3 fail to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CC No. 1280/2014 Page 7 of 8
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 19thday of June, 2020.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K.GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MENBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 1280/2014 Page 8 of 8
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
