Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/269/2015

M/s Chawla Publications (P) Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sagar Aggarwal

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/269/2015
Date of Institution	:	01/05/2015
Date of Decision	:	29/01/2016

 

M/s Chawla Publications (P) Ltd., SCO No.4-5, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Director Bhagatjit Singh Chawla.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its Director.

2.     M/s Anomol Watches and Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Partner. 

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                       

For complainant	:	Sh. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate
For OPs	:	Sh. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         M/s Chawla Publications (P) Ltd., complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that its Director, Sh. Bhagatjit Singh Chawla purchased a Sony Mobile (D-5833 Experia Z3 compact Black) for Rs.37,650/- from OP-2 vide bill dated 6.10.2014 for his personal use in the name of the company.  According to the complainant, the mobile was purchased being impressed from advertisement of OP-1 that the said model was waterproof and dust resistant. After about 3 months i.e. in January 2015, when the mobile was lying on the table with all its flaps closed, some water spilled over from a glass and the mobile stopped functioning.  The complainant went to the authorised service center of OP-1 on 30.1.2015 and handed over the mobile for replacement.  On 6.2.2015, the complainant was called to the service centre with estimate of rs.19,229.25 and liquid ingression was diagnosed as cause for damage to the mobile. The complainant refused to pay the amount and claimed replacement as the same was within warranty. The complainant demanded his phone back which was given to him after a number of visits on 18.2.2015 and Rs.112.36 was charged as labour fee.  The complainant sent a legal notice to OP-1 in reply to which OP-1 stated that the back cover had two hairline cracks, the defect in the set was due to external factors and not inherent to the set as such the warranty stood void as per warranty policy. However, according to the complainant, in the job sheet dated 30.1.2015, it was nowhere mentioned that the back cover of the set had hairline cracks.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written reply, OPs have taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complainant is not a consumer as the subject mobile had been purchased by a commercial entity.  It has been denied that the complainant purchased the handset due to it being water proof. It has also been denied that the advertisements claimed that he handset was dust and water resistant. It has been stated that the cracks on the handset were present at the time of its submission to the service centre. It has been contended that once the warranty is void due to water ingress, it shall remain void irrespective of physical damage to the handset.   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In replication, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated its own.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6.         The complainant had purchased one Sony Mobile Xperia Z3 model on 6.10.2014 by making the payment of Rs.37,650/- vide Annexure C-1. The complainant claims that somewhere in the month of January the mobile in question is lying on his table and due to inadvertence some got spilled on the mobile in question and it stopped functioning thereafter. The complainant has even categorically mentioned in his complaint that all the ports of the mobile were shut with plugs when this event happened.  This fact is also found mentioned in his affidavit. The complainant claims that this particular model of mobile handset is secure of any water ingress as per the literature placed on record by him and also as per the claim of the OPs through their various advertisements. The mobile handset was presented at the service centre of the OP which opined that the same had stopped working due to water ingress and, therefore, it was beyond repair under warranty conditions.  A job card to that effect is annexed as Annexure C-4.  The complainant further pleads that the service centre of the OP demanded Rs.19,229.25 to repair the same to make it fully functional to which the complainant refused and protested that the mobile handset was within warranty terms and conditions as it was secured from any water ingress due to its features as claimed by the manufacturer.  The complainant claims that on his refusal the handset was returned to him in unrepaired condition and the same is lying with him since then.  
7.         The OP-1 manufacturer of the mobile handset in question while contesting the claim of the complainant has claimed that the mobile handset in question was received by it at its service centre and two hairline cracks were reported on the back cover of the mobile handset in question and that the defect in the handset was due to external factors and not inherent to the set, therefore, under such circumstances, the warranty stands void as per the warranty policy and the repairs of the subjected handset were to be on the chargeable basis which were to be borne by the complainant exclusively and in such terms no deficiency in service could be claimed against OP-1. 
8.         OP-2 who is the authorised dealer of OP-1 from where the complainant had purchased the handset in question and nothing has been alleged against it in the present complaint nor it was served upon any legal notice raising his grouse or registering his grievance, therefore, we feel that the present complaint is solely directed against
   OP-1.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed qua OP-2.
9.         We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the complainant and from the contents of Annexure C-4, C-6 and C-7, it is revealed that on the first occasion on 30.1.2015 when the job card No.W115013000931 was generated. The opinion with regard to the handset in question was mentioned as damaged (liquid ingression).  However, on 3.2.2015 another job card was generated bearing No.B1W115013000931 wherein the service centre failed to mention any condition of the handset.  However, another job card of 30.1.2015 (Annexure C-7) the condition of the handset in question is mentioned as B (liquid ingression).  From the contents of these three job cards, it is proved on record that there was no physical damage to the handset as claimed by OP-1 in its reply claiming that there were cracks at the back of the mobile handset.  In our opinion, the findings of OP-1 are totally arbitrary, without any documentary evidence, therefore, the same deserve to be outrightly rejected.  As the complainant has categorically stated that at the time of water entering into the mobile handset all its port were plugged, therefore, the OP-1 without any valid reason and opinion from its service centre with regard to the reasons as to how the water had entered into the handset, which was fully secured according to its manufactured features, has preferred to lay the blame on the damaged back of the mobile handset even though there is not a shred of evidence to that effect.  Such an act of OP-1 is only to save its skin and also to save itself from doing the needful about the handset in question either repairing it free of cost being under warranty terms and conditions or replacing the same due to such fault which was a manufacturing defect it failed to diagnose.  Such an act of OP-1 amounts to deficiency in service on its part for which the present complaint deserves to succeed against it and the same is allowed. 
10.         OP-1 is directed as under :-

(i)     To refund Rs.37,650/- the invoice price as per Annexure C-1 and take back the faulty handset in question from the complainant.

(ii)    To pay consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental agony and harassment.

11.         This order be complied with by OP-1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) of para 10 above, with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
29/01/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Jaswinder Singh Sidhu]
hg	Member	Presiding Member