Chandigarh State Consumer Commission Dismisses Sony's Appeal, Confirms Defect In Playstation-5

Brief Facts of the Case:

The complainants purchased a Sony PlayStation-5 (PS5 Standard GOWR Bundle) on 10 February 2023 from Goel Bros for ₹64,650, with a warranty valid until April 2024. Soon after purchase, the console began showing recurring issues such as games getting stuck, glitches, crashing, and repeated system-generated error messages.

In April 2023, they took the console to the Sony-authorized service centre, where it remained for inspection. They also sent several emails reporting that the problems continued. The complainants produced system-generated error logs and an Internet Connection Test Report to demonstrate the malfunction. They also stated that an earlier replacement unit had shown similar defects.

With no resolution forthcoming, the complainants approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund ₹64,560 with 9% interest from the date of filing, along with ₹5,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 as litigation costs, to be paid within 45 days, failing which the refund and compensation would carry 12% interest per annum.

Aggrieved, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Goel Bros., and Technocare (Sony Authorized Service Centre) filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh.

Contentions of the Complainant/Respondent:

The complainants contended that the PlayStation-5 they purchased on 10.02.2023 was defective from the beginning, as it repeatedly showed glitches, game crashes, freezing, and system-generated error messages. They stated that despite approaching the Sony-authorized service centre in April 2023 and sending multiple emails, the defects were never rectified. The console remained with the service centre for months, and they alleged that it was also tampered with during this period. They submitted system-generated error logs and an Internet Connection Test Report to show that the malfunction was not due to network issues. They further claimed that even a replacement console earlier provided by the opposite parties was also defective.

Contentions of the Opposite Party/Appealants:

The opposite parties argued that when the complainants approached the service centre on 13.04.2023, they claimed the console was freezing and games were crashing, but after detailed inspection and gameplay testing, no defect was found. They claimed the PlayStation was functioning normally according to manufacturer specifications, and they even recorded a video showing the console working properly. They contended that the complainants failed to produce any material or technical evidence to prove an inherent or manufacturing defect in the product and maintained that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

Observations and Decision of the State Commission

The Commission observed that the record contained multiple auto-generated system error messages such as “Something went wrong with this game or app” and “The system is reporting this error to Sony Interactive Entertainment.” These logs were created by the console itself at the time of malfunction and were considered reliable electronic evidence showing recurring defects.

The Commission noted that the opposite parties did not produce any technical, expert, or independent evidence to rebut these error reports or to show that the console met manufacturer standards. It further observed that the complainants had produced an Internet Connection Test Report confirming stable connectivity, ruling out network-related causes. The Commission also noted that the console remained with the service centre for months during the warranty period, yet no effective repair or defect-free replacement was provided. This conduct reflected a failure to fulfil warranty obligations.

The State Commission held that the District Commission's order was based on a proper appreciation of evidence and suffered from no illegality. It upheld the directions for refund, interest, compensation, and litigation expenses. Finding that the appellants had failed to demonstrate any error in the District Commission's conclusions or to establish that the console was free from defects, the State Commission dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.

Case Title:Sony India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Alaukik Rattan Sharma & Anr.

Case no: FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/117/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order