BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 4^th day April 2016

Filed on : 29-10-2014

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.810/2014

Between

Sujith Jose, : Complainant

Vadakkumcheriyil house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court

Near Nirmala Sadan, Road, Muvattupuzha)

Muvattupuzha-686 661.

And

1. M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties

Potteckatt buildings, (1^st O.P. By Adv. George Cherian

HMT Colony P.O., Karippaparambil, HB 48, Panampilly

Kalamassery-683 104. Nagar, Kochi-682 036)

2. M/s. Madona Care Centre,

D No. 26/306-D1,

Parachalil building,

Vengalloor,

Thodupuzha-685 608.

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant’s Case.

2. The complainant purchased a Sony Xperia C 6602 model mobile handset from the agent of the 1^st opposite party on 12-11-2013 on payment of the price of Rs. 23,800/-, with one year warranty. The complainant noticed a crack on the inner side of the display screen, and that fact was intimated to the 2^nd respondent service centre of the 1^st respondent. But instead of getting the defects cured the second opposite party had demanded payment of 50% of the price of the mobile handset. The crack appeared to the handset only due to the manufacturing defect. The complainant is therefore entitled to get the handset replaced with a new one or to get refund of the purchase money, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in addition to the compensation.

3. Notices were sent to the opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party manufacturer appeared and filed a version resisting the claim. The 2^nd opposite party, though appeared, did not file version and contest the matter.

4. Version of the 1^st opposite party.

5. The complainant purchased the mobile handset on 12-11-2013, with one year warranty. The warranty did not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear or due to misuse. When the handset suffered a physical damage, the manufacturer is not liable to replace the handset, as per the terms of the warranty conditions. The complainant had enjoyed the use of the handset for almost 11 months and had approached the 2^nd opposite party on 15-10-2014, with the issue of ‘touch screen damaged and touch not working”. On thorough inspection, the 2^nd opposite party found that the handset had suffered physical damage. Therefore the service engineer had provided the complainant with the estimate for the repair and further the opposite party had offered the complainant with an offer of getting refab DPA at 50% of MRP to which the complainant refused and took the handset with him. This complaint is thereafter filed to harass the opposite parties. The terms of warranty are binding on the parties and the liability undertaken in contract between the parties should be limited to the extent of undertaken. The complaint is therefore to be dismissed.

6. The following issues were settled for inquiry.

1. 1. Whether the complainant had proved that there was deficiency in

service on the part of the opposite parties.?

1. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation as

prayed for.?

iii. Relief and cost.

7. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant and Ext A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party marked Ext B1 to B3 documents, in addition to the oral evidence of the service manager of the opposite party as DW1.

8. Issue No 1.

9.The complainant had entrusted the defective handset to the opposite party No. 2 on 15-10-2014, with the complaint of ‘liquid ingression’, as seen from Ext. A1, and it was supposed to be delivered to the complainant on 16-12014, as noted in Ext A1. As per the service job sheet it is seen noted that there was damage and liquid ingression. When PW1 was cross examined he submitted that the phone was getting over heated occasionally, and that the breakage and infusion of liquid was due to the manufacturing defect of the handset. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant did not produce any expert evidence to prove that the infusion of liquid was due to manufacturing defects. The 2^nd opposite party had attended to the complaint given to it, promptly and informed the complainant that the defect allegedly found on the handset was due to physical damage. Ext B2 is the information leaflet issued by the 1^st opposite party, wherein it is stated that warranty will not be given in case of defects due to physical damage. In this case, the 1^st opposite party is trying to take advantage of a condition in the warranty, and therefore, the opposite party should have adduced scientific evidence to prove that fact. There is nothing to show that there was any external damage to the phone. The damage is from within, without any corresponding external damage. Therefore it cannot be said that the infusion of the liquid was due to physical damage. DW1 admitted that the handset was given for repairs within the guarantee period. The service centre, who was made as 2^nd opposite party in this case, did not adduce any evidence. They also did not file any version. In the above circumstance we find that the opposite party had committed deficient service to the complainant. Issue is accordingly found in favour of the complainant.

10. Issue No 2

11. In answer to issue number 1, we have already found that the complainant had already proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant had given evidence that he was using another handset, consequent to the faulty handset given to him, manufactured by the by the opposite party. As the complainant was deprived of the use of the phone for a reasonable time, he is found entitled to get compensation for the same. Considering the value of the mobile handset which became defective, and the consequent need for the purchase of a new one for the regular use, we find that the complainant is entitled to get a compensation including the cost of this proceedings to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Issue is accordingly found in favour of the complainant.

12. Issue No 3.

13. In the result, the opposite party No 2,

i. is directed to repair the mobile handset by replacing the defective parts under warranty, within one month from the date of receipt of this order after requisitioning to produce the defective handset by the complainant in writing.

ii. The complainant is found entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite parties jointly and severally, by way of compensation, including the cost of this proceedings.

14. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 4^th day of April 2016.

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/Order,

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainant's Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 15-10-2014

A2 : Copy of service job sheet.

Opposite party's Exhibits:

Exbt. B1 : Copy of certified true copy of resolution

dt. 07-02-2014

B2 : Copy of important information

B3 : Copy of Important Information leaflet

Depositions:

PW2 : Safin V. Nazeer

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post: By Hand: