Breaking News

Sony asked to refund price of defective mobile to consumer

By Adv. Jatin Ramaiya

Sohail Shaikh, Fatorda complained against Cloudtail India, Sony India, Amazon and Nishant Enterprises against deficiency in service providing defective goods.  Shaikh said that he had purchased a Sony handset from Amazon through seller Cloudtail. But within few days of his purchase the handset started to give problems and the problems gradated day by day.  Thereby he was constrained to keep the phone with Nishtan Enterprises, the authorized service centre.

After repairing the phone several times and replacing the same for about three times Shaikh claimed that he was tired and the handsets provided by authorized dealer were malfunctioning and therefore, he issued a legal notice claiming refund.

However none of the parties complied with the same.  Cloudtail responded to the complaint of Shaikh and disputed its liability to extent that the handsets were suffering with manufacturing defect and he being seller was not liable to refund or pay any compensation. Amazon defended itself by stating that it is only an online platform.

The Forum held, “The merchandise that is put for sale cannot be suffering from defects and certain parts being installed in the ‘instrument’ without proper precision and perfection would make the use of the said item a traumatic experience rather than a pleasurable one.” Whilst holding Sony responsible for providing defective goods the Forum observed that, it is the case of the complainant and has been proved by him through the job cards that the mobile phone and the three handsets which replaced the original purchased by him, all had manufacturing defects

which did not have a solution and were replaced on each occasion he went to get the phone repaired. It is crystal clear that opposite party No. 3 failed in their duty to deliver a Xperia XZs free from any defect. There cannot be a justification on the part of the manufacturer to

put the customer in inclement situations due to its inadequacy and lack of perfection. The attitude and the behavior of the opposite party No. 3 does not in any way inspire any confidence. Quite to the contrary it shows total lack of responsibility and total disregard towards the complainant who is a purchaser of its product.”

Whilst holding the retailer seller responsible the Forum held that “The opposite party no.2 is duty bound to ensure that the goods sold online to any individual are of standard quality. The Forum further held that, the complainant had requested the service center customer executive on more than one occasion to refund his entire amount which they failed to do and kept on supplying him with a new replaced phone of the same model time and again.”

However, the Forum held that Amazon was not responsible to any liability being a mere platform on which the complainant purchased through the opposite party no.2 proves that this is a bipartite contract between the registered seller, the manufacturer on one side and the

complainant on the other side for the sale of its product a Sony Xperia XZs manufactured by the opposite party no.3. As pointed out both parties are bound by the terms of the conditions of use” 

The Forum directed Sony, retailer and authorized service centre to refund the purchase amount of the phone with interest and further directed a payment of compensation of Rs 60,000.

Check Also

Private banks plan to catch up on loans to MSMEs

While public sector banks so far are the primary lenders to medium, small and micro …