CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.
Raj Shekhar Attri, President and
Preetinder Singh, Member
Sony India – Appellant
versus
Alaukik Rattan Sharma – Respondent
First Appeal No.117 of 2025
(Against the Order dated 6th December 2024 in Complaint DC/44/CC/376/2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh District Commission)
Decided on 1.12.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Home Appliances – Sale of defective Play-Station – Complaint allowed by District Commission alongwith compensation and costs – Product was taken into custody by service centre, yet neither satisfactory repair was carried out nor was defect-free replacement provided, despite product being well within warranty period – Console remained with Service Centre for several months, depriving respondents of use of product for which they had paid substantial amount – Such conduct reflects failure to honour warranty obligations, which every manufacturer and service provider is legally bound to discharge – This behaviour amounts to clear deficiency in service and also falls within ambit of unfair trade practice – Findings recorded by District Commission are fully justified and call for no interference in appeal – Impugned order passed by District Commission, being based on correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting interference of State Commission. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
Result: First Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Raj Shekhar Attri, President—The appellants/ opposite parties have come up in this appeal assailing the order dated 06.12.2024, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby consumer complaint bearing no.376 of 2023 filed by the respondents/complainants was partly allowed as under:-
“.....In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The opposite parties are, jointly & severally, directed as under:
i. To refund amount of Rs.64,560/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of this complaint onwards.
ii. to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.
iii. to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization, over and above payment of litigation expenses.....”
2. Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainants, that they purchased a Sony PlayStation 5 for a sum of Rs.64,650/- from Opposite Party No.2 on 10.02.2023 (Annexure C-1). The Opposite Parties issued a warranty valid up to April 2024, including a warranty update (Annexure C-2). The said PS Standard Gowr Bundle (PSS Hardware) developed problems from the very beginning. In April 2023, the complainants had to approach the Opposite Parties for rectification of recurring errors in the console. Numerous emails were sent regarding the non-functioning of the console, but the Opposite Parties neither refunded the amount paid nor replaced the console (Annexure C-4). The product continues to remain with the service centre, and the console has been tampered with. The console repeatedly crashed while playing games, whether online or offline. Even the earlier replacement console provided by the Opposite Parties was defective in the same manner. Hence, the present consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
3. The Opposite Parties contested the complaint, filed their reply, and stated that the complainants approached their service centre on 13.04.2023 alleging a defect in the PSS Hardware. According to the Opposite Parties, the complainants claimed that certain games were getting stuck, showing glitches, and crashing. To understand the issue, the service centre took the PlayStation into custody and thoroughly inspected the device. The Opposite Parties asserted that during game play testing, no defect was observed and that the console functioned normally as per its specifications. They further stated that the service centre recorded a video showing the PlayStation operating without issues. It was contended that the complainants have not produced any material evidence to demonstrate an inherent or manufacturing defect in the unit, nor any technical report supporting their allegations.
4. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the documents on record, partly allowed the complaint in the manner stated above. Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellants/ opposite parties.
6. None put in appearance on behalf of the appellants on the date of arguments. Accordingly, we have heard the counsel for the respondents; perused the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 as well as the documents placed on record.
7. It is clearly emerging from Annexure C-3 (colly.) that while using the product in question, the respondents had received auto-generated error messages stating “Something went wrong with this game or app” and “The system is reporting this error to Sony Inte
Home Appliances – Sale of defective Play-Station – Company is bound to honour its warranty obligations.
Electronic Goods – Defect in Television set/improper functioning – No cogent evidence to prove inherent defect – No deficiency in service.
The main legal point established is the liability for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the entitlement to compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.
Deficiency in service found against sellers for not rectifying defects in the product as per Consumer Protection Act.
Sale of used and defective car – As long as complainant never claims benefit under warranty, question of impleading manufacturer does not arise.
(1) Usage of goods for earning livelihood does not affect status as a consumer. (2) Revision Petition being used to gain unjust adjournment to extend the matter further.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.