Sony’s Appeal Over Faulty PlayStation-5 Fails Before Chandigarh State Commission; Refund and Compensation Upheld
Pranav B Prem
The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), has dismissed the appeal filed by Sony India, Goel Bros., and Technocare (Sony-authorized service centre), thereby affirming the District Commission’s finding of deficiency in service concerning a repeatedly malfunctioning PlayStation-5. The State Commission held that the system-generated error logs placed on record were credible electronic evidence of recurring defects, and noted that the opposite parties failed to produce any technical or expert report to rebut the same.
The complainants had purchased a PlayStation-5 (PS5 Standard GOWR Bundle) from Goel Bros. on 10 February 2023 for ₹64,650, with a warranty valid until April 2024. Soon after purchase, the console began displaying issues such as games freezing, crashing, glitches, and repeated error messages. The complainants took the PS5 to the authorized service centre in April 2023, where it remained for inspection; they also sent several emails reporting recurring malfunctions. They further stated that an earlier replacement console provided by the opposite parties had also exhibited similar defects.
After multiple attempts to resolve the issue failed, the complainants approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, which partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund ₹64,560 with 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint, in addition to ₹5,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses, to be paid within 45 days, failing which the refund and compensation amounts would carry 12% penal interest per annum.
Aggrieved, the opposite parties approached the State Commission in appeal. They argued that when the complainants visited the service centre on 13.04.2023, the console was thoroughly inspected and tested, and no defect was found during gameplay. They claimed the PlayStation was functioning within manufacturer specifications, and a video was recorded to demonstrate smooth functioning. The appellants asserted that the complainants did not produce any technical report proving inherent or manufacturing defects and that the allegations were unsubstantiated.
The State Commission, however, noted that Annexure C-3 contained multiple system-generated auto-error messages recorded at the time of malfunction, including “Something went wrong with this game or app” and “The system is reporting this error to Sony Interactive Entertainment.” It held that these logs constituted reliable electronic evidence of recurring failures, particularly since the console itself generated the error reports.
The Commission stressed that the opposite parties did not submit any technical, expert, or independent evidence to counter these error logs or to demonstrate that the product met manufacturer specifications. The Commission also pointed out that the complainants had filed an Internet Connection Test Report confirming stable connectivity, ruling out network-related causes behind game crashes
A further finding recorded was that the console remained with the service centre for months during the warranty period and that neither a defect-free replacement nor a satisfactory repair was provided. The Commission held that retaining the console without providing effective redress reflected non-fulfilment of warranty obligations and constituted deficiency in service.
Concluding that the District Commission’s decision rested on a correct appreciation of law and evidence, and that the appellants had failed to demonstrate any infirmity in its reasoning or to prove that the PlayStation-5 was free from defects, the State Commission upheld the order in full and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Sony India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Alaukik Rattan Sharma & Anr.
Case No: First Appeal No. SC/4/FA/117/2025
Coram: Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President), Preetinder Singh (Member)
