State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neeraj Jain vs / Sony India (P) on 3 May, 2016
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 2176 /2013.
DECIDED ON : 3.5.2016.
Neeraj Jain.
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Sony India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
....RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
APPELLANT IN PERSON.
SHRI MOHAN CHOUKSEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3.
ORDER
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Rakesh Saksena, J. :
Appellant / complainant has filed this appeal against the order dated 19.9.2013 passed by District Forum, Bhopal in CC No.261/2013 whereby his complaint has been dismissed.
2. In short, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Sony Xperia P mobile from respondent no.2 / Prakash Music Center, Bhopal on 26.12.2012. On using it, he found the problem of mobile connectivity to -2- computer and lap-top. He approached to respondent no.2 who asked him to contact Accel Front Line Ltd. / respondent no.3, the Service Center. The Service Center updated the phone software, but even after that the problem of connectivity was not resolved. When he again went to Service Center, he was informed that it was a manufacturing fault. On his request the Service Center gave him the DOA for replacement of the phone. Respondent no.2 / dealer then replaced the said mobile and gave him a new Sony Xperia P Mobile. The complainant then detected camera and loud speaker problem in the new mobile. He again approached to Service Center, but the problem could not be rectified. On his communicating to Customer Care he was informed that the said mobile had some technical problem and even if it was changed with the new Xperia P the problem may come again. So he was advised to have refund of the cost. However, when he demanded compensation for the loss suffered by him, no positive answer was given. It is alleged that he sent several emails and contacted several times to Customer Care, but all of them just kept on moving him round and round with no solution. Alleging lot of mental stress and loss in business the complainant approached to District Forum by filing a complaint on 18.4.2013 demanding refund of cost of mobile Rs.2149/- with compensation and cost of ligitation Rs.65000/-. Despite service none of the opposite parties appeared in the District Forum, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the complainant, the most part of which comprised emails sent by the complainant to respondent no.1, learned Forum dismissed the complaint holding no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has preferred this appeal.
- 3-
3. Before this Commission, the complainant filed some more documents comprising emails exchanged between the two parties with an application under order 41 rule 27, CPC. The appellant submits that for just disposal of the appeal these documents deserve to be taken on record. Counsel for the respondent no.1 did not oppose the application as such the documents have been taken on record.
4. Appellant submitted that despite sending repeated emails and tendering the mobile at the Service Center on 31.1.2013 neither his problem was resolved nor mobile was replaced. The respondents even did not refund price of the mobile with compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Company had no objection for refunding the purchase price of the mobile, but the complainant instead of replacement of his Xperia P mobile with the same model wanted an up-graded Xperia SL Model. Though Company offered the same by requesting him to pay the difference amount between the MRP of his current set and the MRP of the selected Xperia SL model, but complainant did not agree for that. Counsel submitted that the respondent is still ready to refund the price of complainant's mobile.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.
6. It is to be noted that before the District Forum, the complainant filed only the emails sent by him to respondent / company except one or two emails sent to him by the company. It is also important to note that the complainant did not specifically disclose in the complaint that the mobile set which he purchased on 26.12.2012 having problem of connectivity with the lap -4- top had been replaced with a new mobile by the respondent / company. It is, however, revealed from document (Ex. A/3) the email dated 30.1.2013 that the mobile purchased on 26.12.2012 was replaced with the new Sony Xperia P mobile. It appears that the complaint has been filed in respect to the problems of newly replaced mobile. The complainant has not disclosed as to when he was supplied the new mobile. From email dated 30.1.2013 it appears he reported about the problems of new mobile at Service Center on 29.1.2013 and they updated the software, but the problem remained the same. According to complainant from the Service Center on his request for replacement, he was informed that there was manufacturing fault and they will replace the mother board in 10 - 15 days, but he did not want to get it repaired and requested for total replacement. From the service job sheet (Ex. A/5) it is seen that the mobile had camera and loud speaker problem. Since the complainant placed before us the original service job sheet it can be assumed that the mobile set has been tendered at the Service Center and it has not been received back by him. From numerous emails right from 30.1.2013 to 28.3.2013 it is revealed that complainant requested the respondent / company to refund his money with compensation of all the losses suffered by him during the period from 26.12.2012 till date.
7. It is relevant to refer to Annexure 'A', a letter sent by the respondent / company to appellant. No date, however, is visible in the photocopy of the letter. This letter in reference to the legal notice dated 25.3.2013 issued on behalf of the appellant states that his mobile was received for services vide job sheet dated 31.1.2013 at their authorized Service Center with camera and loud speaker problems. The Service Center Engineer inspected the set and upgraded software. However, keeping in mind complainant's concern -5- replacement was offered to him as dead-on-arrival (DOA) case. An email message was sent to appellant on 9.3.2013 mentioning that the respondent offered replacement as DOA and requested him to collect certificate from the Service Center. However, the complainant expressed no interest in replacement with the same model and wanted an up-graded Xperia SL model. The company offered the same by requesting him to pay the difference amount between the MRP of his current set and the MRP of selected Xperial model. Appellant however, did not agree for that. It has further been stated in the letter that in view of appellant's above request they offered the appellant refund of the price value of the Xperia P Model. They expressed regret for being unable to give any additional amount (compensation) to appellant as claimed by him in the legal notice.
8. In the legal notice (Ex. A/1) the appellant demanded Rs.21,490/- the cost of mobile and Rs.50,000/- compensation for mental agony and commercial loss and Rs.10,000/- as cost of notice. On perusal of notice again we find that the appellant suppressed the fact that the mobile purchased by him on 26.12.2012 was replaced with a new mobile. It has been made to appear as the defects of camera and loud speaker appeared in the same mobile which was purchased on 26.12.2012. This gives some indication of the mental attitude of the appellant. The appellant himself is running an Enterprise of Engineering and Software Solutions, therefore, very doggedly he pursued respondent for refund of money with the huge amount of compensation. The appellant submitted that he never demanded replacement of his mobile with up-graded Xperia SL model and no such communication has been produced by the respondents on record. In view of the fact that a lot of telephonic communication
- 6- between the appellant and the Customer Care took place it cannot be ruled-out that appellant might have demanded that kind of replacement.
9. It is true that the learned District Forum misconstrued the evidence in holding that there was no evidence on record to indicate that complainant took his mobile for repairs to the respondent on 31.1.2013. The job sheet dated 31.1.2013 (Annexure A/5) is on record. As we have already discussed that the original job sheet is with the appellant, it stands established that mobile set of appellant is still in possession of the respondent.
10. The documents filed by the appellant in this Commission are the emails sent by the respondent / company to appellant. It is reflected from the said emails that the Service Center people had resolved the issue, but a hardware part of the set needed to be changed and that was pending to be swapped at the Head Office as the part availability depended on the stock availability. It was expressed in email Annexure "C" that the company had escalated the case to repair department and they were trying to resolve the problem as soon as possible after the appellant had submitted his handset at Service Center on 31.1.2013. From the email dated 9.3.2013 (Annexure "F") it is revealed that the respondent / company offered the replacement of the mobile set with the same mobile and instructed the appellant to collect DOA certificate from the Service Center and at the same time regretted their inability to comply with the request made by the appellant for exchange with Xperia SL series product. But through emails the appellant right from 27.2.2013 started demanding refund of money with compensation for the losses suffered by him from 26.12.2012.
- 7-
11. On appraisal all the aforesaid evidence, we find that the appellant /complainant was not fair in suppressing the fact that mobile purchased by him on 26.12.2012 was replaced and the defects which he highlighted subsequently, were in respect of new mobile. Even after the offer of replacement given by the respondent, the appellant did not agree, probably for the reason that he expected the replacement of his mobile with an up-graded Xperia SL series product. By Annexure "A" the respondent / company offered him the refund of the purchase value of his Sony Xperia P Mobile model, but the complainant did not agree for that in the absence of payment of additional huge amount (compensation) as claimed by him without furnishing any particulars and rational basis.
12. In the above circumstances and keeping in view the conduct of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal in part. The order passed by the District Forum is set-aside. The respondents are directed, jointly and severally, to refund the purchase value of the Sony Xperia P model mobile to the appellant. The respondents are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- to complainant as compensation. The respondents shall also pay the cost of litigation to appellant which is quantified at Rs.1000/-. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to appellant / complainant within 45 days from today. On failure, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till payment.
(Justice Rakesh Saksena) (Smt. Neerja Singh)
PRESIDENT MEMBER