Delhi

East Delhi

CC/162/2017

VIPUL TANWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.162/2017

 

	Sh. Vipul Tanwar S/o Shri Naresh Kumar   Resident of 75-76, Gali No.7, West Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi Nagar,   Delhi-110092	….Complainant
Versus
	The Director/Manager M/s Sony India Ltd @ Sony Corporation,  A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044	……OP1
	M/s The Smart Mobile Store, Through its proprietor/Partner R-51, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Near Metro Pillar No.44, Delhi-110092	……OP2

 

 

Date of Institution: 27.04.2017

Judgment Reserved on: 02.02.2022

Judgment Passed on: 20.02.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against OPs for giving him defective mobile phone and being deficient in its service in neither replacing the said device nor returning the money despite repeated requests which has caused him mental tension, agony and harassment, therefore praying for replacement of the phone or return of his money along with compensation for the same and litigation cost. OP1 is the manufacturer, OP2 is authorized dealer of OP1,  OP3 and OP4 are the authorized service center of OP1. 

1. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased a new mobile phone, make of OP1, Sony, model number E2363 for a sum of Rs.22,500/- from OP2, vide retail invoice /cash memo bearing book number 18, serial number 863 dated 28.06.2015 and the EME1 of the same being 352198070673724.
2. Complainant submits within 8 months, the above said mobile began to give problems, pixel and camera was not working and complaint went to the OP2 and asked him to change the mobile but OP2 advised the complainant to go to the service center for repair. Therefore, he has handed over the said mobile phone to OP3 on 19.02.2016 and after repairing the same was handed over to the complainant on 26.02.2016.
3. Complainant found that despite repair, the same problem remained. Therefore, he once again handed over the same to OP4 on 29.02.2016, which was returned by the person at the service center saying that there is no problem showing in the mobile. Since the problem was persisting therefore, complainant once again handed over the same to OP3 on 22.06.16 and after repairing the same was returned to the complainant on 29.06.2016.
4. Complainant further submits that despite repair, the problem remained same therefore, the complainant once again handed over the same to OP3 on 7.07.2016 and since then the mobile is lying with the service center.
5. The complainant submits that since OP3 failed to address the problem and in services, therefore, he sent email to requesting OP1 to return his money but all in vain. The complainant further submits that the from the above incidences and circumstances, it is clear that the mobile phone purchased by the him had manufacturing defect which is not repairable and  OP1 and OP2  were fully aware about this fact, still with malafide intention, sold the same to the complainant and also did nothing to sort out the problem instead told that complainant to get it repaired as it is out of warranty now, whereas, OP1 and OP2  are under duty bound to replace the same or return the money.      
6. Complainant further submits no action taken by OP1 and OP2 to solve the problem of the complainant or to replace the mobile phone or returned the money despite repeated requests, which amounts to deficiency in service and due to negligent act of the OP1 and OP2, complainant had to suffer a lot and above all, he had to purchase another mobile phone. The legal notice served upon OP also not replied. Complainant submits that he has suffered mental torture and agony and also financial loss for want of the said mobile.
7. OP1 and OP2 have filed their reply but did not file their evidence and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.02.2020. The parties to the dispute are under obligation to prove their pleadings by way of affidavit. It is settled principle of law that the pleadings are not evidence and in the absence of affidavit, mere pleadings, WS herein, filed by OP1 and 2 cannot be considered.   
8. Complainant has filed its evidence in support his claim and filed copy of the cash memo dated 28.06.2015, the job cards dated 26.02,2016, 29.02.2016, 29.06.2016 and 07.07.2016.
9. The Commission has perused the document on record carefully and heard the Ld.  Counsel for the complainant. The Ld. Counsel for OP has also appeared and submitted that they are exploring the chances for settlement. However, settlement could not be reached between the parties.         
10. The complainant has filed the invoice dated 28.06.2015 for the purchase of above said mobile. Job cards attached by the complainant show that the mobile starting developing problems within eight months from the date of purchase. It was within warranty till 2016 and record shows that complainant has submitted the mobile three times with the service center of OP with problems, duly noted by the service centers. The OP4 did nothing as mentioned by complainant, but OP3 diagnosed the problem and resolve the issues two times, however, the phone did not work properly despite service. It is noted that both the times, the issues noted by OP3 were different. The job card dated 26.02.2016 issued by OP3 shows that the part replaced and service work done. The job card dated 29.02.2016 issued by OP4, has noted that H/S working fine; not show dot in display; proper QC check.  The job card dated 29.06.2016, issued by OP3 mentioned that part replace, S/W done.  The job card dated 07.07.2016, mentioned phone is out of warranty and condition of the said phone as scratched, on tempor, backside screen guard and mentioned that 2 GB RAM not show.
11. This commission is also conscious of the fact that the said mobile phone is of a reputed company and trusting the status of the OP company, the people purchase such costly smart phones with certain level of expectation, for better performance and no hassle with the hard ware or software of the mobile set.  The problems with new mobile phone within 8 months of the purchase and 4 times visit to the service center and repair on the basis of the issues identified by them, itself implies that the said mobile phone was having some defects which could not be cured despite service. This commission is, therefore, of the view that the OP1 and OP2 are deficient in their service in providing defective mobile set to the complainant and are directed to pay the cost of the mobile after deducting depreciation as it was used by the complainant for about 8 months be provided to the complainant which we deem justified @ 75% of the Rs. 22,500/- i.e Rs. 16,875/. The complainant has also been awarded a compensation of Rs.5000/- towards the harassment and mental agony caused to him and Rs. 2500/- to words the litigation cost, to be paid by OP1 and OP2. The above said order be complied with by the OP1 and OP2 within one months from the date of receiving of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry an interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complainant i.e. 27.04.2017 till the actual realization by the complainant.
12. The copy of the order be given to the parties as per CPA rules 1986 and the order be uploaded on website. Thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
13. The complaint could not be decided with in statutory period due to heavy pendency of the cases.   
14. The order contains 07 pages each bears our signature.
15. Pronounced on 20.02.2022