Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/679

SONY INDIA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANZHAR H A - Opp.Party(s)

R CHANDRAPRAVEEN

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 679/2016

JUDGMENT DATED :23.01.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.230/15

on the file of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT.R                                  : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A                   : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

1. Sony India Pvt Ltd, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044

 

2. The Manager, Madona Care Centre, Door No.XIV/54, Thekkekkuttu Building, K.K.Road, Kanjikuzhi, Kottayam – 686 004

 

3. The Proprietor, Mobile Care, Purayidathil Complex, Near Jawahar Theatre, College Road, Kothamangalam

 

(By Adv.Sri.R.Chandra Praveen & others)

 

565.  

RESPONDENT

Anzhar.H.A, S/o.Abdul Quadar, R/o.Thekkeveettil,    Peerumade.P.O, Idukki

        (Party in person)

 

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        :JUDICIAL MEMBER

                 Opposite parties in CC.No.230/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the forum by which they were directed to replace the mobile with a brand new one of same model having same features or refund of Rs 34,500/- the price of the mobile phone to the complainant, to pay Rs 2000/- as compensation and to pay Rs 2000/- as cost to the complainant.

                 2.    The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows.  The complainant on 13/09/2014 purchased a Sony Xperia Z1 Model phone manufactured by the first opposite party from the third opposite party for Rs 34,500/-. According to the complainant, third opposite party assured that the said phone is having rating of IP 55 and IP 58 standard and it can be used in fresh water up to 1.5 meters deep for 30 minutes. It is also mentioned in the startup Guide issued by the first opposite party. The opposite parties also assured in their advertisement that the phone is water resistant and also assured that the said mobile phone is having one year warranty. According to the complainant on believing above said assurance he had purchased the mobile phone. According to the complainant on 14/05/2015 the said mobile phone became defective, so he had entrusted the mobile phone with the second opposite party. The bill and warranty card were showed to the second opposite party. And the second opposite party informed that they would repair or replace the same, since the defect is within warranty period and they issued a job sheet. After two weeks he had enquired about the mobile phone with the second opposite party and they demanded Rs 20,000/- as service charge for the repairing of the mobile phone, and they informed that they are not ready to replace the same. The complainant on several times made complaint before the first opposite party. But the opposite parties have not cared to repair or replace the complainant’s mobile phone. According to the complainant, the said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

                        3.     opposite parties jointly filed version contending that an inspection of the mobile phone by the opposite party, it is found the mobile was dead due to physical damage and resultant water ingression and lot of parts were to be replaced. Hence no warranty can be extended. Therefore it could only be repaired on charge basis. It was explained and an estimate dated 23/05/2015 was handed over the complainant. But the complainant refused to pay, so the handset could not be repaired. According to the opposite parties, the defect of the mobile phone is due to the negligent and mishandling by the complainant, and opposite parties are not liable to replace the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of them. So they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                        4.     No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on his side. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. After considering the evidence and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite parties have preferred the present appeal.

                 5.    Heard both sides. Perused the records.

                 6.    The complainant purchased a new mobile phone on 13.09.2014 from the third opposite party, manufactured by the first opposite party for an amount of Rs 34,500/-, evidenced by Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is the warranty card. In Ext.A2 it is stated that the mobile phone was having 12 months warranty. On 14.05.2015 the mobile phone of the complainant became defective. So the complainant entrusted the mobile phone with the second opposite party. Ext.A4 is the job sheet issued by the second opposite party. The second opposite party demanded Rs 20,000/- as repair charges for the complainant. There is not much dispute to these facts, between the parties.       

                 7.    According to the complainant the complaint of the mobile phone was due to manufacturing defect. So the opposite parties are bound to repair and mobile phone free of charges or replace the same with a new one. It is the case of the opposite parties that the defect of the mobile phone was not due to any mechanical defect, but due to negligent use of the same by the complainant which is not covered under the ambit of the warranty and so they are not bound to repair the defects of the mobile phone free of cost or to replace the defective mobile phone with new one. In Ext.A4 the condition of the mobile is stated as ‘liquid ingression’and complaint is noted as ‘no power’. According to the opposite parties the defects were due to the damage and the resultant water ingression and so a lot of parts were replaced. According to the complainant at the time of purchase the third opposite party assured that the said mobile phone is having rating of IP 55-58 standard and it can be used in fresh water up to 1.5 meters deep for 30 minutes. It was also mentioned in the startup guide and in their advertisement. According to the opposite parties the defect to the phone was due to water ingression into the internal parts and so it cannot be repaired on warranty. Ext.A3 is the startup guide issued by the first opposite party manufacturer. In Ext.A3 it is stated that the mobile phone is having IP (ingress protection) of 55 & IP 58. It is stated that this rating means that the devise is dust resistant and it is protected against low pressure water stream as well as against the defects of submersion for 30 minutes in fresh water up to 1.5 meters deep. In Ext.A4 the condition of the mobile phone is noted as ‘liquid ingression’. As found by the district forum, without any evidence to prove physical damage to the mobile phone the contention taken by the opposite parties that they are not liable to repair or replace the defective mobile phone is not sustainable. There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 13.09.2014 for Rs 34,500/- and the defect incurred on 16.05.2015, within the warranty period and the major parts of the phone were to be replaced. As found by the district forum there is no evidence to consider that the defect of the mobile phone occurred due to the negligent use of the same by the complainant. In Ext.A3 it is stated that the mobile phone is having rating of IP 55 & IP 58 and it is protected against the low pressure water stream as well as against the defects of submersion for 30 minutes for fresh water up to 1.5 meter deep. There is no evidence to consider that there was physical damage to the mobile phone due to the negligent use of the same by the complainant as contended by the opposite parties. As found by the district forum the opposite parties were liable to repair the defects of the mobile phone free of cost or to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one. The newly purchased mobile phone showed serious complaints within a short period and hence it has to be considered that it was due to manufacturing defect, especially in the absence of any contra evidence. As found by the district forum the act of the opposite parties in not repairing the complainant’s mobile phone, free of cost or replace the mobile phone within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and so the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties. We find that there is no ground / reason to interfere with the finding of the order and the direction given by the district forum to the opposite parties to replace the mobile phone with a brand new one, same mobile phone having same features or refund Rs 34,500/- the price of the mobile phone to the complainant. The compensation and cost ordered by the district forum is just and reasonable and so there is no reason to interfere with the same. So the appeal is to be dismissed.

                        In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

                 Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in the appeal.

                 Amount of Rs 19,250/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal shall be released to the respondent / complainant on proper application filed by him, to be adjusted towards the amount ordered, if the mobile phone is not replaced with new one by the opposite parties within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.

                 In IA.No.1394/16 this commission granted interim stay on condition of the appellant depositing the sum ordered by the forum within a period of one week and to produce the receipt before the commission. If the amount was deposited by the appellant as directed by the commission the respondent/ complainant is permitted to obtain the balance amount from the amount deposited by the appellants before the lower forum on filing proper application and statement regarding amounts due. The balance amount, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant on their application.

 

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

RANJIT.R                         : MEMBER

 

 

BEENA KUMARI.A           :MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 679/2016

JUDGMENT DATED :23.01.2019