By: Smt. R.K.Madanavally, Member (In-Charge of President)
Facts in brief:-
On 24.3.13 the complainant herein had purchased a mobile phone for an amount of Rs.38,194/- from opposite party No.2 which was having a warranty of one year. Within one month of the purchase itself it had became defective. As per the warranty card issued by the opposite parties, the warranty claims should be made either through the dealer or through the Sony contact center. Hence he approached the second opposite party, but the opposite party No.2 failed to replace the mobile hand set. A notice was sent by the father of the complainant for which the opposite party No.2 sent a reply notice stating that the warranty assured against the product is manufactures warranty and there fore, the opposite party No.2 is not liable to replace the hand set.
There after, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 to replace the same. They received the product on 4.7.13 and returned the same and informed that the mobile is irreparable and they are not ready to replace the same. The complainant alleges that the opposite party No.1in their advertisements in print and visual media advertised and made believe that the product is water resistant. Further, opposite party No.2 assured one year warranty against manufacturing defects. According to the complainant all the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and hence this complaint.
The opposite parties filed their detailed version where in they specifically disputed the averments/allegations of the complainant. The purchase of the mobile, and period of warranty were admitted by the opposite parties.
The salient features of warranty were explained in their user guide. The complaint caused to the mobile phone will not cover the warranty. How ever, for the customer satisfaction, opposite parties had offered 20% discount upon the same model. The opposite parties further alleged that, the complainant had not taken any expert opinion for proving the defects and he is trying to make wrongful gain from opposite parties by filing this complaint.
According to opposite parties, definite evidence of liquid entry was found and so, the repairs of the handset would not be covered under warranty as per the warranty terms and conditions. The complainant is making baseless allegations about the opposite parties and there is no deficiency committed by them and so the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.
The issues arises for our consideration here in are
1)Whether the opposite parties are deficient in their service
2)If so relief and cot.
Point No.1 and 2.
Both the complainant and opposite parties adduced documentary evidences. No oral evidence was adduced by either parties. Ext. A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ext. B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
The value of the mobile phone was prooved by the Ext. A1 document. The specific allegation of the complainant is that the advertisement says 'water resistance' . To prove that aspect they have produced Ext A3 ie, the start up guide issued by the opposite parties. The Ext. A3 reads that this means that your device is dust protected and protected against the effect of immersion in water in depths of between 2cms to 100 cm for up to 30 minutes
The opposite party submitted that the hand set had been certified by International bodies for certain standards relating to water and dust resistance and these standards are acceptable world wide. On the basis of these certifications, opposite party No.1 is making the claims regarding water and dust resistance only.
The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued on point of the misleading advertisement ie, “ the product is water resistant . The opposite parties were realy cheating the customers. Through the misleading sentences, these types of opposite parties are committing unfair trade practices.
It is true that opposite parties had offered 20% discount upon the same model of hand set. The complainant was not ready for the same and so they issued Ext. A7 notice to the 2nd opposite party.
The mobile phone was expensive worth Rs.38,194/-. The opposite parties ought to have consider the pain and mental agony of a customer who was expecting much while purchasing such costly goods from a reputed company. Now a days a lot of tactics are employed to lure the buyers. These types of advertisements are affecting the customer's freedom of choice, purchasing behavior and may some times prove to be hazardous. Since all the defects were caused during the period of warranty all opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant
In the light of the evidence tendered by both sides we are passing the following orders;
The opposite parties shall jointly and severally remit Rs.38194/- to the complainant being the value of the mobile phone, with a compensation of Rs.20000/- and a cost of Rs.5000/- failing which opposite parties shall further pay interest at 6% per anum from the date of pronouncement of this order.
This order shall be complied with in one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Dated this 19th day of February, 2016
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER (In-Charge of President)
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A11
Ext.A1 : Invoice
Ext.A2 : SAR information
Ext A3 : Start up guide issued by 1st and 2nd opposite party
Ext A4 : Warranty certificate
Ext A5 : Important information
Ext.A6 : Copy of the notice with postal receipt issued by father of the complainant.
Ext.A7 : Copy of the notice with postal receipt issued by father of the complainant.
Ext A8 : Reply notice sent by opposite party No.2
Ext A9 : Service Job Sheet
Ext A10 : Service Job Sheet
Ext A11 : Retail Invoice
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B5
Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High court dated 23/07/2013
Ext.B2 : Certified True copy of the resolution passed by opposite party dated 04/07/2011
Ext.B3 : letter sent by 2nd opposite party to the 1st opposite party.
Ext.B4 : Important information brochure issued by opposite party
Ext.B5 : Important information brochure
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER (In-Charge of President)
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
