Order-7.
Date-07/06/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short is that the Complainant had purchased a mobile hand set of Sony make from OP-2, M/s. Sony Centre, 165/1, C.I.T Road, Scheme VII-M-Ultadanga,Kolkata-700054 being serial no. AJPL/02470 XPERIA 25 Premium/E883 dated 30.12.2015 for Rs. 57,000/-. It is alleged that the mobile set became out of order ever since the purchase. It is also alleged that whenever the Complainant alleged complaint, Ops gave irrelevant reply. The Complainant alleged several complaints in writing and over phone to OP-2, M/s. Sony Centre. The Complainant also handed over for rectification of the mobile to the Service Centre of M/s. Kalpataru IT Retails Pvt.Ltd., but they have returned the Complainant with job sheet without rectification of the mobile set. The Complainant has alleged that mobile set developed problem since the very beginning and it was manufacturing defect and has prayed for refund of the purchase amount along with other reliefs in terms of prayers in the petition of the Complainant.
OP-1 appeared in the case and filed a w.v. contending inter alia that claim of the Complainant is not sustainable in law. It is stated that Complainant purchased the ‘Sony Mobile XPERIA 25 Premium’ on 30.12.2015. This OP also received service request of the handset at its authorized service centre, M/s. Kalpataru IT Service Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata with symptom – “Handset opened by unauthorized technicians and as a result the battery adhesive was found damaged and also frame was found dented and liquid indicator red, set liquid engrossed too”. It is also stated that the handset cannot be treated in warranty as it is damaged due to external cause and it is also stated that in case of liquid ingress some parts may get gradually affected and normal 90 days service warranty will not be applicable in this case. It is also stated that this OP offered the Complainant a new Sony Handset of any model of latest technology at the rate of 80 percent of MRP of the product in exchange of his existing handset which Complainant has not yet reverted back to accept the offer. It is stated that Complainant may be asked to exchange offer and it is also stated that the case may be disallowed and dismissed accordingly.
OP-2 has neither appeared or filed any w.v. and the case has proceeded ex-parte as against O.P.-2.
Point for Decision
- Whether Ops are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant?
- Whether the said mobile set suffers from any manufacturing defect ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We take up all the points together for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion. We have perused the documents on record i.e. photocopy of Service Job sheet dated 21.06.016, photocopy of service job sheet dated 17.10.2016, photocopy of purchase detail invoice, photocopy of cash invoice dated 30.12.2015, photocopy of letters on different dates to OP-1 from the end of the Complainant, photocopy of letter dated 1st December,2016 addressed to the Complainant from Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1).
It is pertinent to point out at the outset that O.P.-1 appeared through authorized representative, filed W.V. and did not come up subsequently and the case proceeded ex-parte against both the O.Ps.
From the document on record we find that the Complainant purchased the subject mobile set being “Sony Mobile XPERIA 25 Premium’ of Sony make on 30.12.2015. It also appears from the document on record that the said mobile set demonstrated problem within a short time since its purchase. It is alleged from the side of OP-1 that the handset was opened by unauthorized technicians and as a result the battery adhesive was found damaged and also frame was found dented and liquid indicator red set liquid engrossed too. We are afraid there is no such evidence on record that the subject mobile set was handled by any such unauthorized person.Moreover, the Complainant has filed a net copy about XPERIA-25 Premium on record to the effect that XPERIA 25 Premium duel phone manifesting problems like Hang, heating problem, poor battery life, poor camera, head phone jack port un-functional etc.etc. We find from the job sheet filed by the complainant that the customer complainat is “Head phone jack not detected loud, speaker cracking etc. etc.” Moreover, we are also given to understand that the problem of the subject mobile was dent and the liquid indictor red set liquid ingrossed too. We also find that the handset is covered under 90 days service warranty and it is stated that it is not possible to cure the defect and the sevicicing of the product is uneconomical. OP also offered a new Sony Handset sealed packed of any model of latest technology at the rate of 80 percent of MRP of the product, in exchange of the existing handset of the Complainant. But the Complainant has not accepted any offer. We think that the product is found defective from the materials on record and such defect cannot be eradicated and in case of liquid ingresson some parts may get gradually affected and it is possible that defect may appear at a later date. But the handset problem as we find cropped up within the warranty period.
We think it would be fit and proper to direct the OP to refund the purchase price of the mobile set with 30 percent deduction as the Complainant has used the mobile set for about one year before moving to this Forum and by then the warranty expired.
Considering the fact and circumstances, we dispose the case in terms of the operating portion of the judgement which follows.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte but on merit aginst the OPs.
OP-1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.57,000/- with 30 percent deduction thereofonnon standard basis within one month from the date of this order.
OP-1 is also directd to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant towards litigation cost within the said period.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under the appropriate provision of CP Act.
