Punjab

Sangrur

CC/79/2016

Gurwail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony Mobile Communication India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Sahni

08 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 79                                                                                          Instituted on:  08.01.2016

                                                                    Decided on:    08.09.2016

 

Gurwail Singh son of Nahar Singh c/o Dera Kar Sewa, Near Nankiana Sahib Gurudwara, Nankiana Road, Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1.       Sony Mobile Communication India Ltd. 4th Floor, House  No.17/18, WEA, Karol Bagh New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.       Sankalp Electronics ( Sony Mobile Authorized Service Station) Near Nankiana Chowk, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner.

3.       Chhabra Communication, Opposite Bus Stand, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate                           

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&2:   Shri G.S.Toor, Advocate.

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY NO.3         :   Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate                 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Gurwail Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Sony Xperia mobile model M4 from the OP No.3 for Rs.20000/- vide bill  number 3968 dated 14.09.2015 under one year warranty. In the first week of October 2015, the said mobile set started giving problems of heating and auto off for which the complainant approached OP No.3 who advised him to approach OP no.2. Then the complainant approached OP No.2 who kept the mobile set with it and issued job sheet dated 03.10.2015.  After installing the software  the mobile set in question  handed over to the  complainant. After passing of 3/4 days, the mobile set again started giving same problem and the OP No.2 issued job sheet dated 07.10.2015. Thereafter the mobile set was returned to the complainant in OK condition. After ten days, the mobile set again started giving problem and OP No.2 issued job sheet dated 21.10.2015. Official of the OP no.2 told the complainant that company will call the complainant for replacing the mobile set in question as there is manufacturing in all the series of mobile set. The complainant requested the OPs to replace the same  but they did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

 

i)      OPs be directed to refund the purchase price of the said mobile set i.e. Rs.20,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

 

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

 

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs no. 1 to 3, preliminary objections on the grounds that OP No.1 provides  a limited warranty of one year on its product from the time of its original purchase and liability lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it. As per relevant terms of warranty " if during the warranty period  this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship, the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace  the product in accordance with the conditions".  Further the warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal and customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product. The complainant approached the OPs on 07/10/2015 raising issues an issue of heating  and camera lens. However upon inspection it was observed that there was no such issue with aforesaid handset and it was working normally as per its specification.  The complainant again approached the OPs with complaint of heating. However software was updated for better functioning whereas no hardware problem was found. Same fact was communicated to the complainant as well but the complainant preferred to file the present complaint. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             In his evidence, the complainant has produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs  has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith  annexure R-1  to R-5  and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had purchased  Sony Xperia model M4  from OP No.3  on 14.09.2015 for an amount of Rs.20000/- under warranty of one year which is evident from the retail invoice number 3968 dated 14.09.2015 which is Ex.C-3 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that in the first week of October 2015,  the set in question started giving problems of heating  and auto off  and OP No.2  installed the software and returned the handset to the complainant and issued job sheet dated 03.10.2015. Again the same problem persisted on complaint of which  OP No.2and OP no.2  after repair it returned the same to the complainant and issued job sheet dated 07.10.2015 . But again the problem persisted and  this time the OP No.2  told that the defect is not curable/ repairable as there is manufacturing problem in series of the mobile set. In support of his version the complainant has produced on record copies of job sheets issued by the OP No.2 which are Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 on record.

5.             Against the version the complainant, it is an admitted case of the OPs that on 07.10.2015   complainant approached the OP no.2  with an issue of heating and camera lens but after inspection  it was found that it was working normally as per its specification and there was no problem in it. The complainant again approached for same problem  and software was updated for better functioning whereas no hardware problem. But, surprisingly the OPs have not produced on record any document/ voucher which shows that the mobile set in question was repaired  and returned to the complainant to his entire satisfaction rather the OPs themselves admitted that  the complainant approached them with complaint of heating of the mobile set  but  OPs have mentioned in the reply that there was no problem in the mobile set in question.

6.             To prove his version, the complainant has also produced on record report of an expert namely Damanjit Singh Ex.C-7 along with his certificate Ex.C-8  wherein  he has opined that  he found that there is manufacturing defect and due to that reason mobile was giving said problems which is not curable.  

 

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that the mobile set  in question created problems to the complainant repeatedly within the warranty period which could not be removed by the OPs despite repeated visits meaning thereby there is manufacturing defect in it.  In this manner,  the OPs are deficient in service and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same model or in the alternative refund an amount of Rs.20000/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant subject to return of the defective mobile set in question along with all accessories of it or in the . We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                September 8, 2016

 

 

 

 

        ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                        Member             Member                  President

 

 

BBS/-