Sometimes companies have to pay heavily for ignoring their customers. In one such case, the consumer court has directed Sony Mobile to pay more than Rs 50,000 to a woman for not repairing her handset. According to Bhasha news, a consumer court directed Sony Mobile Communication and its two sales and service outlets in Assam to pay more than Rs 50,000 to a woman whose mobile phone was not repaired by the company about nine years ago.
Instruction to pay compensation within 45 days
According to the news, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Kamrup in an order dated July 26 directed Sony Mobile Communication, its retail outlet Sony Center in Christian Basti and Sony Service Center on Rajgarh Main Road to pay compensation within 45 days. The commission directed the three accused parties to pay a sum of Rs 40,000 with 10 per cent interest to the complainant Neena Bairagi for physical harassment and mental agony from the date of filing the case. In addition, they were directed to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 to the complainant as cost of proceedings.
The case was registered in 2016
The commission also said in its decision that if the due amount is not paid by the respondents within 45 days, they will have to pay 12 per cent interest on the amount till the recovery of the amount. After a long hearing and proceedings since the case was registered in 2016, the commission held Sony Mobile guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to pay compensation and also repair the mobile handset within 45 days.
The handset was bought for Rs 52,990 in 2015. The report states that Bairagi bought a Sony mobile handset from Sony Center on August 10, 2015 by paying Rs 52,990. A month later, the phone fell from his hand and as a result it got deactivated. After this, the complainant contacted the Sony Service Center, but the service engineer told him that repair of the said model is not available and the only option is replacement at a cost of Rs 25,000. Bairagi also contacted the service head at Sony Mobile’s New Delhi headquarters several times through email, but despite assurances of resolving the complaint within 48 hours, it was not done.
After this, he filed a complaint with the Consumer Legal Protection Forum of Assam. Based on this complaint, the forum registered a case in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Kamrup. The three respondents in their written statement to the Commission had termed the complaint as frivolous and stated that it was a perfect example of gross misuse of the beneficial provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
