Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/169/2015

Mr. Santosh Kumar Kumawat - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Customer Care Cell, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

09 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/ 169 /2015
Date  of  Institution	:	18 /03 /2015
Date   of   Decision	:	9/11/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Santosh Kumar Kumawat S/o Sh. Parmeshwarlal H. No. 356, Sector 32A, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. The Manager, Customer Care Cell, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, through its Manager, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110014.
2. Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Ltd., The Sony Services Centre, SCO No. 144-145, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Branch Office KIADB Complex 1^st floor, Honsur Road, through its Manager, Bommasandra, Bangalore 562158.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH. P.L. AHUJA                                        PRESIDENT

                   MRS.SURJEET KAUR                            MEMBER

                  

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	ex-parte.
For OP No.2	:	Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset make Sony C-6902 Xperia Z1 black vide invoice Annexure A-1 from Anmol watches and electronics (P ) Ltd. authorized dealer of Sony for a sum of Rs.39,000/-. The said mobile accidentally got damaged on 9.8.2014. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 where an authorized representative after checking the handset told that back panel had broken and the same could not be repaired and it required replacement with a new one having one year warranty for which he gave quotation Annexure A-3 of Rs.18,495/-.  Since the mobile handset was insured under the New India Assurance Company Pvt. Ltd.(Opposite Party No.3), therefore,  the complainant sent the quotation to it for approval. Opposite Party No.3 approved the quotation on 1.9.2014. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.2 alongwith demand draft of Rs.18,495/- (Annexure A-4). But surprisingly  respondent No.2 told that the replacement policy has been changed by the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 29,495/- to get it replaced with the new handset carrying one year of warranty and gave the complainant fresh quotation Annexure A-5 of Rs.29,495/-. The complainant requested Opposite Party No.2 to replace the handset according to old quotation but it flatly refused to do so.  The complainant even contacted  Opposite Party No.1 through customer care cell as also through emails but to no effect. When Opposite Parties No.1&2 did not redress his grievance the complainant sent a legal notice to them but to no avail. Hence this complainant alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

2. Notice of the complaint was sent to Parties, seeking their version of the case

3.Opposite Party No.1, initially, appeared through Sh. Navin Kumar its authorized agent on 29.4.2015 , but subsequently as none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, hence vide order dated 20.5.2015 it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

4. Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement has stated that  it is one of the authorized service centres of the manufacturer and has no liability to replace the mobile or refund the amount of mobile handset to the complainant. The answering Opposite Party is bound by the terms and conditions of the manufacturer. It has further been stated that the complaint is liable  to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of parties as the dealer has not been impleaded as one of the Opposite Party. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5. Opposite Party No.3 in its written statement has stated that  there is no deficiency or delay on its part as after receiving the intimation regarding the loss claim, the same was approved as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  It has been asserted that the complainant failed to submit the required documents with the answering Opposite Party for settlement of the claim despite emails sent to him to this effect.   It has been further asserted that the complainant himself failed to complete the requisite formalities for the settlement of  his claim and as such there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.3. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6.                 The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No. 2&3.
7.           Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
8.                 We have heard the complainant in person learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No. 2&3 and have perused the record carefully,
9.           The main grouse of the complainant is that Opposite Party No.2 did not honour the promise of replacement of the defective handset, in question, having MRP of Rs.39,000/- as per Annexure A-1, which got damaged on 9.8.2014 by accepting the offer of a sum of Rs.18,495/- as per Annexure (A-2/A-3) the quotation of estimate at page 9 of the complaint.  The allegation of the complainant is that when he approached Opposite Party No.2 (the service centre) with a Demand Draft of Rs.18,495/-(A-4) he was refused the replacement despite the fact that quotation Annexure A-2/A-3 was issued by it only on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, rather another fresh quotation with an estimate of Rs.29,592/- was issued to the complainant for the replacement of the same defective handset by OP No.2. It has been pleaded that the complainant initiated the process of the approval of claim of the as per old quotation from the Opposite Party No.3 (the insurance company) and it was likely to be settled very soon. But Opposite Party No.2 did not replace the handset as per the old estimate on account of change of terms and conditions of the manufacturer.
10.                 Pertinently, Opposite Party No.1 chose not to appear before this Forum and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.05.2015. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.  
11.            It is not clear what was the need to issue first quotation of Rs.18,495/- Annexure A-2/A-3 to the complainant when Opposite Party No.2 was not in a position to honour the same. To prove its contention that why it was not in a position to honour its own promise due to change of terms and condition by Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2  did not place on record any such document to make the things clear. Hence, it was its bounden duty to fulfill the promise as per Annexure A-2/A-3 where it offered the replacement to the complainant with payment of Rs.18,495/-. It is quite clear that as the handset was insured, therefore, the complainant after pursuing Opposite Party No.2 initiated the process of claim and due to the alleged  change of terms and conditions, the complainant later on could not complete the required formalities of Opposite Party No.3. Therefore, due to fault of Opposite Parties No.1&2 Opposite Party No.3 can not be held liable for grievance of the complainant regarding replacement of the handset in question. Hence, the complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed.
12.            Even it is very surprising how the rates were increased in new quotation because in general the MRP of  all the old products relating to mobile phones get decrease with the passage of time. The act of Opposite Parties No.1&2 in taking different stand for the same issue and non-replacement of the handset in question despite offer of Rs.18,495/- as per their own quotation amounts to deficiency in rendering service. Therefore, Opposite Parties No.1&2 are liable to compensate the complainant for their deficient act.  

13.          In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that Opposite Parties No.1&2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1&2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties  No.1&2 are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 

[a]     To replace the handset in question with one year warranty after receiving Rs.18,495/- from the complainant as per first quotation Annexure A-2/A-3.

 

[b]     To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

[c]      To make payment of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

14.          The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1&2, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No. [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

15.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

9^th November, 2015                                                                             sd/-/-

 (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER