DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB: PRESIDENT

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LLB, FIE: MEMBER

Tuesday the 27^th day of June 2023

CC No. 454/2015

Complainant.

Rameez Azeez, S/o Azeez S.K,

Razz, Bhagavati Mukku,

Kizhunna (P.O), Kannur – 670 007.

(By Adv.Sri.Muhammed Ziyad P.A)

Opposite Parties

1.           The Manager,

Sony India Pvt Ltd,

Reg. Office No.A-31,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial estate,

Mathura road, New Delhi – 110 044.

(By.Adv.Smt. Shweta Bharti, Adv.Shantanu, Adv.Sri.Anil Tiwari & Adv.Sri.K.S.Vivek).

2.           The Manager,

Accel frontline Ltd,

48/62A, Sastri Nagar CDA Road,

Eranjipalam, Calicut, Kerala 673 006.

3.           The Manager,

3G Mobile world,

Sabha centre, Mavoor road,

Near fly over Calicut -4.

(By.Adv.Sri. Dilkhush V.K)

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT.

      This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 03/04/2013 the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia Z (C6602) mobile handset from the third opposite party, which is the dealer of Sony India Pvt Ltd., paying Rs.38,900/-.  He purchased the same only because of the inducement, persuasion and the assurance of prompt after sale service and warranty offered by the manufacturer and authorised dealer.  But contrary to the assurance about the quality of the product, the handset developed scratches, lagging while using the internet and various other problems like hanging up, snag etc., within six months of the purchase.  The touch panel of the phone had broken accidentally.  On 02/04/2014 the complainant entrusted the handset to the 2nd opposite party, which is the authorised service centre, on the assurance that the defects would be repaired under warranty.

3.      But after one week, the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the handset was not repairable and instead offered that he could get a brand new phone of the same description for half of the original price of that model.  The complainant accepted the offer and enquired about the details whereupon the service centre informed that the complainant had to take demand draft in favour of the company and that the company would inform the exact price which he had to pay.

4.      Later after one week when he called the service centre, there was no response.  They never picked up his calls.  Hence he was forced to travel to the service centre more than five occasions to know the status.  By the third week of the October 2014, the complainant was informed by the service centre that they had stopped the authorised service of Sony India Ltd and asked him to collect the handset. The handset was returned to him on 24/10/2014 without carrying out any service or repair.  Thereafter the complainant contacted the customer care centre and the company and ventilated his grievances.  He also sent a written complaint by email on 08/11/2014, but did not get any remedy from the company.

5.      The complainant had been dishonestly induced to the purchase the product and thereafter cheated him by making false representations and promises.  He was put to severe mental agony and monetary loss.   On 10/12/2014, he issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties.  But the 3^rd opposite party alone sent a reply raising untenable contentions.  Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.38,900/-, being the cost of the handset along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony, stress and strains and financial loss caused to him.

6.      The opposite parties filed written version wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. The purchase of the mobile phone by the complainant from the 3^rd opposite party is admitted.  Later the complainant alleged that the handset had an issue of touch pad, hanging up, snag and charging issue.  However, on examination by the service engineer it was revealed that the problem was on account of the issue happened by accidental damage which is not covered by warranty.  The repair was possible only on chargeable basis.  But the complainant was not ready to accept the offer of repair on chargeable basis.  The 2^nd opposite party offered that a brand new Sony Xperia Z would be delivered to the complainant, if he was ready to pay 50 % of the price.  However, the complainant rejected the offer and demanded repair at a minimal cost.  He demanded replacement of the handset.  The complainant has suppressed true facts.  The allegation that the calls of the complainant were not attended is false and hence denied.  The allegation of misrepresentation cheating etc. are false and hence denied.  The 3^rd opposite party has replied to the notice.  The complainant had failed to prove any defects in the handset and he has not produced any analysis test report.  No loss or injury has been caused or occasioned to the complainant on account of the opposite parties.  The complaint is devoid of merits and none of the reliefs is allowable. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint.

7. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

 (2). Reliefs and costs.

8.      Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW 1 and Exts A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. The authorised signatory of the 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit. 

9. Point No.1:    The case of the complainant is that the Sony Xperia Z handset purchased by him showed complaints and its touch panel had broken accidentally and he had entrusted the same to the authorised service centre of Sony India Pvt Ltd. for repairs well within the warranty period.  He was informed by the service centre that the handset was not repairable and offered that he could get a new handset of the same description for half of the original price of the model.  The grievance of the complainant is that though he had accepted the offer, no further action was taken by the opposite parties to supply the new handset at half price, in spite of his repeated contacts and finally on 24/10/2014 the handset was returned to him by the service centre for the reason that the Sony service authorisation was stopped.  Though he contacted the customer care centre and the company over phone and by email and lawyer notice, no positive action was taken to redress his grievance.

10.      In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim.  Ext A1 is the invoice dated 03/04/2013, Ext A2 is the service job sheet dated 24/10/2014, Ext A3 is the retail invoice dated 24/10/2014, Ext.A4 is the email complaint dated 08/11/2014, Ext A5 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 10/12/2014 and Ext A6 is the postal receipt.

11.      The case advanced by the opposite parties is that the problem to the handset was due to the damage caused which is not covered under the warranty.  The handset was repairable only on a chargeable basis, but the complainant was not ready for that. According to the opposite parties, they offered a brand new phone for half of the original price, which was also not acceptable to the complainant and he demanded repair at a minimal cost.  Further it is contended that the complainant adamantly demanded replacement of the mobile phone which was not possible in terms of the warranty. 

12.      As already stated, the authorised signatory of the 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit, but he was not cross examined by the complainant.

13.      The purchase of Sony Xperia Z (C6602) mobile handset by the complainant from the 3^rd opposite party on 03/04/2013 paying Rs.38,900/- as per Ext A1 is not disputed.  That the handset is having a warranty of one year is not disputed.  That the complainant approached the authorised service centre on 02/04/2014 alleging some complaints including breakage of the touch panel is not disputed.  He approached the service centre well within the warranty period.  There is no serious dispute on the above aspects.

14.      Going by the evidence in hand and the documents produced and from the admission of the complainant, it can be seen that accidental damage was caused to the mobile phone at the hands of the complainant.  It is an admitted fact that failure of the product due to accident is not covered under the warranty.  So the complainant cannot insist that the product should be replaced or repaired free of cost.  However, the opposite parties are bound to repair the product on chargeable basis. 

15.       But in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the opposite parties had offered a brand new phone for half of the original price of the model to the complainant.  The evidence of PW1 shows that he had accepted the offer and was awaiting further instructions from the opposite parties in this regard.  But to his surprise, on 24/10/2014 the 2^nd opposite party returned the handset to him stating that they had stopped the authorised service of Sony India Pvt. Ltd.  It is clearly stated in Ext A3 that “handset delivered to the customer without service, as the Sony service authorisation stopped”.  In Ext A2 also there is endorsement to the effect that the handset was delivered without service. It is in evidence that after this incident, the complainant was running from pillar to post for redressal of his grievance.  The phone was returned to him after seven months of the entrustment without any repair.  He contacted the customer care centre and the company and sent complaint by email as per Ext.A4. But all these proved futile.  No positive steps were taken by the opposite parties to resolve the issue.  Ext. A5 lawyer notice issued evoked no response from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The irresponsible attitude and inaction of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.

16.      It is averred in the version that the complainant insisted for repair of the handset at minimal cost.  If that be so, no explanation is offered by the opposite parties for not repairing/ servicing the phone even after seven months of the entrustment.  There is no justification for keeping the handset for about seven months without attending the complaint and thereafter returning the same stating that service authorisation was stopped.  No alternate arrangements were made or necessary instructions were given to the complainant by the opposite parties as to what he should do or where he should go.  There was lethargy and inaction on the part of the opposite parties which constitute gross deficiency of service.

17.       The stand taken by the opposite parties is that the complainant did not accept their offer of supplying a brand new handset at 50% of the price.  But this cannot be believed without a pinch of salt.  PW1 has categorically asserted that he was lured by the offer and he readily accepted it.  If the complainant had not accepted the said offer, he would not have kept the mobile handset with the 2^nd opposite party for such a long time.  If there was no such offer, the 2^nd opposite party also would not have kept the handset with them for such a long period.  Exts A4 and A5 communications further lend support to the case of the complainant that he had accepted the offer.  There are clear recitals to that effect in the above documents. The service request ID 14110106484 provided is also stated in the complaint.  These documents cannot be disputed by the opposite parties.  It is also pertinent to note that Ext A5 lawyer notice wherein the complainant has projected his grievance with regard to the non-providing of new phone at 50% of the price is not responded by the opposite parties 1 and 2.  If there was no acceptance of the offer by the complainant as alleged by the opposite parties, they could have very well sent a reply to the lawyer notice stating the true facts.  But that was not done.  This is also a strong circumstance which goes against the opposite parties.  It appears that there is no merit or bonafides in the contentions of the opposite parties and that such contention are raised only to avoid the liability.

18.      For the reasons and circumstances stated above, we hold that there is sufficient proof of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Undoubtedly, the irresponsible act and conduct of the opposite parties have resulted in intense mental agony, hardship and inconvenience to the complainant.   The complainant was not able to repair his phone even during the warranty period due to the latches on the part of the opposite parties.  He could use the phone purchased by him spending Rs.38,900/- only for a short period and thereafter it has become a worthless product for him.  The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately.  Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.40,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case.   The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.

19. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:

1. C C 454/2015 is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation.
3. The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.40,000/- shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
4. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 27^thday of June 2023.

Date of Filing: 24-08-2015.

                                 Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-

                          PRESIDENT                                                                                               MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

         Ext A1 - Invoice dated 03/04/2013.

         Ext A2 - Service job sheet dated 24/10/2014.

         Ext A3 - Retail invoice dated 24/10/2014.

         Ext.A4 – E-mail complaint dated 08/11/2014.

         Ext A5 - Copy of the lawyer notice dated 10/12/2014.

         Ext A6 - Postal receipt.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 - Rameez Azeez.

Witnesses for the opposite parties

Nil

                                      Sd/-                                                                                                             Sd/-

                   PRESIDENT                                                                                              MEMBER

                                                                                        True copy,

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                                          Assistant Registrar.