Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/175/2016

M/s.Asham Mohamed - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Sony Corperation, Centennial Square. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Om Sai Ram Associates

27 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 12.05.2016

Date of Reservation      : 18.08.2022

Date of Order               : 27.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,         : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 175/2016

SATURDAY, THE 27^th  DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mr. Aslam Mohamed,

Son Of Late M.F.Shariff,

No.77. Walaja Road,

Chennai - 600 002.                                                                                                                                             ... Complainant                          

..Vs..

1.The Managing Director,

   Infiniti Retail Limited,

   Also known as CROMA STORE,

   No.701 & 702, 7 floor,

   Kaledonia, Sahar Road,

   Andheri (East),

   Mumbai-400 001.

 

2.The Managing Director,

   Sony Corporation,

   Centennial Square, 6th Floor, No. 6A,

   Dr. Ambedkar Road,

   Kodambakkam,

   Chennai-600024.

 

3.The Customer Service Manager,

    Croma Electronic Mega Store,

    Tarapore Towers,

    Mount Road,

    Chennai – 600 005.                                                                                                                                          ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant                : M/s. OM Sai Ram Associates

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party        : M/s. F.John Joseph

Counsel for the 1^st & 3^rd Opposite Party : Party in Person

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainants and having treated the written arguments of the Counsel for the Opposite Party 2 to treat the written arguments as oral arguments, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to refund a sum of Rs.40,399/- being cost of mobile phone or replace it with new mobile phone and to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony and hardship caused with interest 18% p.a along with costs.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had purchased SONY M/P Xperia Z1 model Mobile having its IMEI No.358094051608660 from the 3^rd opposite party on 27.02.2014. At the time of purchase 3^rd opposite party offered extended warranty for the product of the 2^nd opposite party on a payment of Rs.1299/- Based on the concept of extended warranty and Brand name of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite, complainant opted to purchase mobile manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party on the aforesaid date from the 3 opposite party. The Complainant had manufacturing unit named as Universal Engineering Works, and manufacturing Bolt, Nuts & washers suppling to Mrf Ltd various unit for the last 20 years and yearly turnover of Rs. 6,54,91,856/- for the year 2013-14. The 1^st week of June 2015 onwards his customers complained of that his voice is not properly heard while taking in mobile and also our client experienced that his Mobile got heated which causes him head ache and related problems and the same was came to know when he checked with his family Doctor. Immediately, he had approached the 3^rd  opposite party complaining above issues to the customer Service Desk staff of 3d opposite party who had directed him to claim ID No.171387 and also advised him to handover the mobile to one Ashok, Clarity Service. Accordingly, complainant had approached Clarity services and met the said Ashok and handed over his Mobile on 8.6.2015. Thereafter after a week time, said Ashok returned Mobile to the complainant as if the problem had been rectified however when complainant used the mobile he had experienced the same issue. Therefore, complainant attempted to call Ashok he seems to be avoiding. Which forced complainant to approach 3^rd  opposite party on 2.7.2015 however when the 3^rd opposite party called the said Ashok, he picked up his phone and answered and as per advice of 3^rd  opposite party, once again Mobile was handed over to him. On 10.7.2015 they had returned mobile stating that it got repaired, but the same problem persist when used by the complainant.  When the complainant reported the above issue to the 2^nd opposite party being the manufacture of his mobile. Shockingly, 2^nd opposite party informed that particular phone has not come to them at all for repair, as if it had come I.D. would reflect in the records and on mention about Clarity they said that Clarity service is not authorized service centre for Sony Mobile phone and the 2^nd opposite party advised that once the 1^st and 3^rd  opposite party not able to repair mobile they are bound to replace the same. Immediately, complainant approached 3^rd  opposite party and who advised once again to handover the mobile to said Ashok and gives him a month time to repair the mobile. According to 3^rd  opposite party lapsed time is so small. Having frustrated with response and advise given by the 3^rd  opposite party, complainant contacted 1^st  opposite parties Toll no.1800 258 3636 and spoke to one Waseema who patiently heard all grievances of the complainant later she lethargically directed the complainant to call another Toll no 1800 29 2525 patiently, he had called the said number one Aashish took the phone once again our client repeated his pain full experience to him, the said Aashish mechanically advised him to contact Customer support Department The Complainant believes that for name sake opposite parties are naming it as customer service desk or department but functioning below the par and it seems that main aim for customer care people to see that customer like complainant who are all addressing their complaint should run to pillar to post and thereby opposite parties customer care people will see that customers got tired and thereby they should not turn back later and they will see that customer should forget the matter. Thereby opposite parties are adopting unfair trade practices. .The Complainant states that he had done plethora of mail correspondence with opposite parties so called customer care desk however, he is yet to get his problem rectified. It is apt to mention here that for each and every mail sent by the complainant, he has got irresponsible reply by all the opposite parties which made him to suffer severe mental agony. The Complainant is in Manufacturing sector and business turnover was Rs.6,54,91,856/- before purchase of the mobile and after purchase of the mobile the turnover has decreased to Rs.6,07,92,374/- due to non working of mobile and harassment meted out by the opposite party. Due to repeated follow ups he had lost his peace of mind and also he had suffered health hazards and also all the opposite parties have made him to run pillar to post from June 2015 August 2015 in this connection he had lost his valuable customer and suffered huge loss in his business which works of to Rs 10 lakhs and for mental agony suffered at the hands of opposite parties works out to Rs.2,00,000 and further all of the opposite parties are bound to refund the cost of the mobile. Altogether, all of opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- with replacement of mobile to him. The Complainant submits make it clear that for the above deficiency of services coupled with mental agony, loss of business and hardship caused by opposite party directly and indirectly to the complainant he works out compensation for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- in addition to that complainant is entitled for refund of his money back le sum of Rs.40,3V- being the cost of his mobile.  Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties 1 and. 3 in brief is as follows:-

At the outset, the above Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party No.1 & 3, is wholly misconceived, false, frivolous, baseless, bad, vexatious, not maintainable, gross abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The Complainant has completely failed to make out any case against Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 and is required to point out as to how it is liable along with the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 to make payments of the amounts as specified in the Complaint. The above Complaint merits outright dismissal against Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 as the same is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. The above Complaint is absolutely baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law and the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 has been wrongfully and erroneously impleaded as a party to the above Complaint by the Complainant solely for the purposes to harass and blackmail them. In any Consumer Complaint, a Complainant is required to make out a case and is required to establish a cause of action against the Opposite Party, nothing contained in the complaint which has not been dealt with by me specifically herein due to inadvertence of otherwise should be deemed to be admitted by me or the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 unless the same has been admitted by me specifically herein. At the outset, the above Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party No.1 & 3, is wholly misconceived, false, frivolous, baseless, bad, vexatious, not maintainable, gross abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The Complainant has completely failed to make out any case against Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 and is required to point out as to how it is liable along with the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 to make payments of the amounts as specified in the Complaint. The above Complaint merits outright dismissal against Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 as the same is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. The above Complaint is absolutely baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law and the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 has been wrongfully and erroneously impleaded as a party to the above Complaint by the Complainant solely for the purposes to harass and blackmail them. In any Consumer Complaint, a Complainant is required to make out a case and is required to establish a cause of action against the Opposite Party, however uponpremature as on the date of filing and on this ground alone the above complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.  The Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 is a reputed company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Sons with a well established brand name in the sector of electronics retail. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 has a stellar record in its sector since its inception in 2005. However such complaints tend to injure the reputation of Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 and involving Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 in false, frivolous and time consuming complaints is a waste of time and gross abuse of the process of law. Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 has always endeavored to fulfill every requirement of customers to choose best products meeting their requirements and budget. Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 employs efficient, well-trained and knowledgeable store advisors who are completely equipped to offer sound and personalized advice for helping a customer receive the best value for money. Opposite Party No. 1 & 3's business philosophy is to make the consumer's shopping experience delightful post purchase too. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 believes that the foundation for investing in a robust customer base is by providing service support to the customers through its Twenty Four (24) hours call center. Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 has always been dedicated towards giving its customers an easy and hassle-free access to best consumer electronics products. This dedication has earned the company "Most Admired Retailer award 7 years in a row from Indian Retail Forum. Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 is a retailer involved in the business of retail selling of electronics goods. The profile of Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 include buying of various electronic products from different manufacturers in buik quantities at trade/volume discounts and then selling the product of manufactures to consumers on an order-by-order basis. Therefore Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 can be said to be a mere intermediary/ platform to connect the manufacturers to the potential customers. While Opposite Party No. 1 & 3^rd profile of operations may appear to be narrow, it however includes additional services which are provided to the customers which have been more specifically stated in the paragraphs hereinabove. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 is known for its services and it has always ensured that they provide the best possible services to all their customers. The material time, the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 takes adequate steps to ensure that there is no deficiency in services provided to the customers. However, the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 cannot be in any manner held responsible for any defects in the manufacturing since manufacturing and related defects that may occur is the direct responsibility of the manufacturer thereof, since Opposition Party No. 1 & 3 is not involved in activities relating to manufacturing including the activities of assembling and packaging.  The series of Judgments of Consumer Court in similar such complaints, the Consumer Forums have time and again held that when there was a manufacturing defect in respect of a good supplied by the dealer, but manufactured by the other party by the manufacturer, only the manufacture of "defective" goods was liable to make good the loss of the Consumer/Complainant for all the loss or injury suffered as a result of negligence in manufacturing and not the dealer. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 states that its position is akin to that of the dealer and hence cannot be held responsible. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 is merely involved in the demonstration, guidance and support to the customers through its hired employees. Thereafter, the Consumer himself/herself verifies the same and then the transaction is completed with handing over of the goods bought in proper package and the remuneration being received by the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3. This concludes the transaction and contract between the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 and the Complainant ending all and any obligations of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 with respect to future defects that may be discovered upon unpacking of the goods and its use. However, Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 ensures that it provides effective after sale support by guiding the Consumer about the further steps to be taken in case of defect in the product.  The Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 functions through its established Retail Stores in different parts of the country. A Retail Store as defined by the American Market Association is, "A place of business (establishment) open to and frequented by the general public, and in which sales are made primarily to ultimate consumers, usually in small quantities, from merchandise inventories stored and displayed on the premises."  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. Written Version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

 The Complainant purchased a Sony mobile XPERIA ZI. with EMI No. 358094051608660 from Opposite Party No.3 on 27.02.2014. The mobile carries the manufacturer warranty of one year. However it transpires from the averments in the Complaint that 3^rd Opposite Party provided additional warranty on receipt of certain payment. It is pertinent to mention here that the answering opposite Party has not given any such offer with the said mobile and is not accountable for the warranties given by 3^rd Opposite Party. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant never approached the Answering Opposite Parties with any service request and filed the present malafide Complaint. The Opposite Parties are more than willing to repair the said product as per the terms of warranty, if there is any genuine issue in the product. He approached the Answering Opposite Parties he would have been given the proper Service by the Answering Opposite Parties. But the Complainant choose to file the present malafide Complaint alleging defects in the product. Thus, it is apparent that the Complainant is pursuing the present Complaint in most unfair manner for illegal enrichment and hence the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the Answering Opposite Party with exemplary cost against the Complainant and in favour of Opposite Parties. It is pertinent to mention here that the handset traded and marketed by Answering opposite Party carry one year warranty and even the product in question in the present case has one year warranty as provided by the Answering Opposite Party. Thus, allegedly when the cause of action arose ie in June 2015, the product was out of warranty. Further the Answering Opposite Party is not aware and has nothing to do, if any additional warranty is offered by 3^rd Opposite Party and the Answering opposite Party can not be held liable for the same. There is no history of any request made by the Complainant. That the Complainant's allegation of lack of prompt service is baseless and concocted; without any documentary proof. It is reiterated that he has never approached the Answering Opposite Party. In fact after the receipt of court notice, the Answering Opposite Party has even written letter dated 04.07.2016 to the Complainant asking for deposit of handset in the nearest service Centre so that appropriate action can be taken but no response has been received so far. A Copy of the letter dated 04.07.2016 is annexed herewith as Annexure OP-B. It is apparent that there is no lack or deficiency in service by or ends of the Answering Opposite Parties and the Complainant has made a case which is completely false and frivolous in nature. The Complainant with the sole intention of tarnishing the reputation of the Answering Opposite Party and for wrongful gain has filed a false and fabricated case against the Opposite Party.  That therefore, under the above stated facts and circumstances, and in absence of any deficiency of service, or any negligence in service, this present Complaint application is fit to be dismissed at the very outset, imposing heavy cost on the Complainant for tarnishing the reputation of the company and implicating it in this false and frivolous litigation. It is submitted that the Answering Opposite Party always keeps its customers at a very high pedestal and the Complainant was offered best services. Hence, the complaint of the Complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone.

5.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7  were marked.   

The 2^nd Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the 2^nd Opposite Party, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-2  were marked. Proof affidavit of 1^st and 3^rd Opposite parties was closed.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

        It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased Sony M/P Xperia Z1 B1K Mobile Phone on 27.02.2014 with extended warranty for one year at additional cost from the 3^rd Opposite Party.

        The disputed fact is that the Complainant’s said phone suffered with defects and at the direction of the 3^rd Opposite Party, he had handed over his phone to one Clarity Services on 08.06.2015 and after a week, his mobile phone was returned as rectified. As the same issues persisted he was forced to approach the 3^rd Opposite Party on 02.07.2015 and again his mobile phone was handed over as per the advice of 3^rd Opposite Party and was returned to him on 10.07.2015, as issues rectified, but the problem in his mobile phone persisted. When contacted the 2^nd Opposite Party, being the manufacturer, it was informed that they did not receive his mobile phone for repair and the said clarity services is not their authorised service centre. Thereafter when contacted the 3^rd Opposite Party, the 3^rd Opposite Party had advised to hand over to the same person of the same service centre and to give a month for repair.

        From perusal of Ex.A-1 it is clear that the Complainant had purchased the subject Mobile Phone on 27.02.2014 from the 3^rd Opposite Party with extended warranty. Ex.A-3 is the merchandise Entry pass dated 02.07.2015, evidencing the subject Mobile Phone of the Complainant handed over for repair. From Ex.A-4 it is clear that the Complainant’s phone suffered with defects, for which email communication exchanged between the Complainants and 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties. It is clear from the email communications at the advice of the 3^rd Opposite Party the Complainant had hand ever his phone to clarity services for repair. Since the defects of the Complainant’s phone was not resolved, the Complainant was constrained to cause legal notice dated 07.11.2015 to the Opposite Parties, the said legal notice along with postal receipts and acknowledgement card of the 1^st Opposite Party were marked as Exs.A-6 and Ex.A-7.

        On discussion made above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the defects of the subject mobile phone of the Complainant was not resolved by the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties, inspite of several attempts made, which clearly establishes that the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties acted negligently inspite of having collected an additional cost for extended warranty though no such extended warranty was guaranteed by the 2^nd Opposite Party, the manufacturer, the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties failed and neglected to resolve the issues of the Complainant’s Mobile Phone. Hence, we hold that the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties had acted in negligent manner and thereby had caused mental agony to the Complainant. Therefore we are of the considered view that the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service and the 2^nd Oppsoite Party being the manufacturer has not committed any deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered as against the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties.

Point No.2 and 3:-

        As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties, the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.40,399/- being the cost of the Complainant’s Mobile Phone and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5000/-, to the Complainant. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

     In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 3 are jointly and severally  directed to refund a sum of Rs.40,399/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Nine Only) being the cost of Sony M/P Xperia Z1 Mobile Phone and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realisation complaint against the 2^nd Opposite Party is dismissed.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 27^th day of August 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	27.02.2014	Photo copy of the Duplicate invoice for purchase of mobile from the 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A2		Photo copy of the Balance sheet for the year 2014
Ex.A3	02.07.2015	Photo copy of the Merchandise entry pass for handing over mobile for repair with the 1st  opposite party.
Ex.A4	June 2015 to Sep 2015	Photo copies of email communication made by the Complainant with Opposite Parties
Ex.A5		Photo copy of the Balance sheet for the year 2015
Ex.A6	07.11.2015	Photo copy of the legal notice issued to opposite parties
Ex.A7	09.12.2015	Photo copy of the acknowledgment cards of the Opposite Parties

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 2^nd Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1		True copy of the Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of Sony India Pvt Ltd
Ex.B2		Copy of court Notice

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st and 3^rd  Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT