Mumbai: A district consumer commission has directed Sony India Pvt. Ltd and its authorised service centre to repair a handset or give another one of similar configuration to a Andheri-based complainant. The commission has also directed Sony and authorised service centre to pay Rs 6,000 towards litigation cost.
The order dated November 9, 2022 was given by R G Wankhade, president, Preethi Chamikutty, and Shraddha Jalnapurkar, members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban on a complaint of Andheri resident Laxmikant Sharma against Sony India Pvt. Ltd and others.
Non co-operative staff and physical damage to phone
Sharma had purchased a Sony Xperia Z3+ handset in August 2015. By October 2015, the handset started developing problems and he had to visit the authorised service centre of Sony India, where service centre checked the handset and took it for repairs. In the jobsheet, problems mentioned were 'overheating', 'fast battery drain' while a replacement was sought by Sharma. When even after a month the handset was not repaired, he was told that his complaint will be resolved in 48 hours. Later on the same day it was told that his handset is ready and he can collect it. When Sharma sent his friend to collect the mobile, latter found the people at service centre non co-operative and that the handset was physically damaged. Even though it was under warranty period, service charges of Rs 114 had to be paid.
Sharma then asked that mobile handset be replaced or money refunded from Sony, which asked him to visit the nearest centre. When he visited one, staff at service centre was rude and asked him to talk to Sony. Disappointed with the service of the international brand that despite knowing that he was given a defective handset, he felt that he was still made to run from pillar to post for repair or replacement. Finding behaviour while selling the product and later while giving services so contrasting, Sharma filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission.
During the hearing, Sony said that due to misuse and negligence oby Sharma, the handset was ineligible for free-of-cost repair service. As per company policy, the warranty on product becomes void when there is any physical damage to the product, which has been clearly stated in the product warranty Terms & Conditions. However, Commission noted that in the job sheet the condition of handset was mentioned as with "Scratches minor". The Commission also noted that while accepting Sharma's handset, another handset was provided to him and that he was not completely helpless and that it is still in his possession.
