Delhi

New Delhi

CC/116/2017

Jugesh Kumar Srivastava - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony Mobile India (P) Ltd (Importer) - Opp.Party(s)

22 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                        (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                       ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                         NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./116/2017                                                                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

JUGESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (J.K. SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                    

S/o Sh. Gaya Prasad

Ch. No. 39, Western Wing

Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-54                                                                        .…Complainant

                                                            Versus

1.  M/S SONY MOBILE INDIA (P) LTD. (IMPORTER)

A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate

Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044

Through authorized signatory

 

2.  M/S F -1, INFO SOLUTIONS & SERVICES PVT. LTD.

(Sony Authorized Service Centre)

206, 2^nd Floor, Middle Circle,

Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110001

Through authorized signatory

                                                                                                   ……Opposite Parties

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA-PRESIDENT

                                                            ORDER

            The Complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That on 29.04.2015 the complainant purchased the mobile set in question i.e. E21115/ Experia E4, Sony being IMEI NO : 358138060812100 along with Hands-free kit for Rs. 11,500/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Five Hundred only) with one year warrantee from the date of purchase, from M/S Vikram Electronics 3646/47, N.S. Marg Darya Ganj , New Delhi. The complainant was made to believe that the product sold was original and top in the line handset in the market along with a hassle free post service of the products to its buyer.

            That the OP No. 1 is the importer/distributor while the OP No. 2 is the authorized service centre for Sony mobile in question.

            That initially the mobile phone seemed to work but very soon the complaint realized that the mobile-set was not functioning to its fullest configurations, therefore, the complaint thought that probably he would get accustomed to the same with the passage of time, later on, the complaint realized that it was the old manufacturing which was being sold in the market and the OPs ought to have recalled the older stock from the market.

            Later on, the phone became slower and slower and it was difficult to talk on the same. The battery backup of the mobile set also reduced considerably and there was hanging and charging problems.

            On 17.07.2015 the complainant went to OP No. 2 to the mobile which issued the job sheet he was asked to come after few days as the phone was to be sent to the company for rectification of defects. Despite several changes, the phone could not be rectified. The OP No. 2 informed that nothing more could be done in the phone because of RAM and moreover, the production of mobile phone has also stopped.

            It is submitted that the mobile phone in question was defective and was under warranty. There was deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence this complaint.

            The opposite parties were noticed. In their reply, it was admitted that they have sold the above stated mobile phone to the complainant. That after purchasing of the said handset, the complainant for the first time approached the service centre on 17/07/2015 raising an issue of “heating & charging “with the aforesaid mobile handset. The OP-2 without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the handset. Upon inspection it was observed that the condition of the handset was scratchy and it seems as if the handset was roughly been used by the complainant. It is stated that there is no deficiency on the part of OP. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit. AR of the complainant was heard and record perused.

            It was argued by complainant that the complainant has come to know that the production of mobile in question have been stopped and it was the old products lying with the respondent no. 1 to be sold in the market and crores of rupees of the gullible consumer like the complaint were being engulfed by these companies by selling defective and out- dated products, such trends is liable to be checked through the iron hands of judiciary

            The bill, the purchase voucher for Rs. 11,500/- for purchase of the mobile phone is placed on record. After going through the records of the proceedings, it is clear that the phone was purchased on 29.04.2015 whereas the first complaint in respect to this phone was made on 17.07.2015 i.e. within 3 months of its purchase. It is clear that a mobile phone is just like a small computer in which this works on certain software which are installed in the respective phone. It is admitted that the phone had a warranty for one year. A mobile phone is a tool for communication in modern times and a person carries it for 24 hours. A company manufacturing  these mobiles sells them in a large number. The cost of instrument in present case is less than Rs. 12,000/-. A purchaser is not expected to leave the phone with the company for a long time. It is bounden duty of company to rectify the defect immediately failing which the company can be hauled up for deficiency in service.

            A phone is an important instrument for an Advocate because he has to deal with the clients at any point of time and if conversation is not proper or the phone is not working properly, then, he would definitely feel harassment and mental agony. It has to be borne in mind that as a company the phone can always be replaced if the complainant is coming with the problems again and again for rectification. In this case, the same has not been done and the complainant was not provided even some other phone so that he can use the same in his profession.

            Keeping in view of facts and circumstances, I see from the records there is deficiency in service on the part of OP’s who failed to accommodate the complaint in a professional manner. So, the Forum feels that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s accordingly. We direct as under:-

1. We award a sum of Rs. 11,500/- to the complainant along with 9% interest. p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 23/02/2017, till payment.
2. The complainant is directed to handover the mobile phone to the OP after receiving the above said payment.

            Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free  of cost as statutorily required. 

            Announced in open Forum on 01/04/2019

            The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

            File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                                    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                           PRESIDENT

 

        (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

            MEMBER                                                                   MEMBER