BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 13^th day of March 2018

Filed on : 12-01-2016

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.24/2016

Between

Akash K.A., : Complainant

S/o. Anoop Kumar, Thyparambil (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court road,

house, Cherai P.O., Muvattupuzha)

North Paravoor-683 514

And

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

A-31, Mohan Co-operative (party-in-person)

Industraial Estate, Mathura road,

New Delhi-110 044,

rep. by its Managing Director.

2. M/s. PAX Communicataions

Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd Floor,

Lulu shopping Mall, Edapally P.O.,

Kochi-24.

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant’s case

2.The complainant purchased a sony X-peria D6502 mobile phone from the 2^nd opposite party on payment of Rs. 34,300/- on 30-01-2015 with one year warranty. The phone became defective on 24-07-2015 and the matter was brought to the notice of the 1^st opposite party branch office at Cochin as per the direction of the 1^st opposite party. The phone was entrusted to M/s. Madonna electronics who are the authorized service centre of the Sony mobile for repairs. After inspecting the phone the technician Mr. Fahad Fazil informed the complainant that the battery was defective and there were hardware complaints which had to be attended by another service centre . The complainant came to know that the handset purchased by him is shaving serious hardware complaints. The complainant therefore insisted for the replacement of the phone which not obliged by the 2^nd opposite party. As there is major defects to the phone within the warranty period, the complainant is entitled for refund of the price of the mobile phone Rs. 34,300/-.

3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties who appeared and contested the matter by filing their version.

4. The first and last service requests from the complainant was received on 27-07-2015. On inspection and analysis of the product the engineer found that product up gradation was necessary. Accordingly, software was upgraded. Thereafter the complainant did not turn up with any other complaints. The product was collected by the complainant on 27-07-2015 after due inspection and satisfaction. The complaint is therefore to be dismissed.

5. When the matter came up for complainant’s evidence the complainant filed a proof affidavit and Exbts. A1 to A3 were marked.

6. Following issues were settled for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Reliefs and costs.

7. Issue No. i. The complainant produced 3 documents to substantiate the case that there was manufacturing defects for the phone purchased by the complainant. Exbt. A1 is the bill dated 30-1-2015 for having purchased a Sony Xperia 6502 mobile phone on 30-01-2015 on payment of Rs. 34,300/-. Exbt. A2 is the cash memo issued by M/s. Madona Electronics, repair centre of the 1^st opposite party on 27-07-2015 and the work is seen to have done under warranty. Exbt. A2 would also going to show that the charging problem was dictected, but the customer wanted the same returned . Therefore, the set was given back to the complainant and no work was further done on it. Exbt. A3 is the warranty card produced by the complainant as issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

8. The complainant had produced only Exbts. A1 to A3 documents and those documents did not prove that the complainant had to suffer at the hands of the opposite party due to any manufacturing defects of the phone supplied. The complainant did not adduce any job card which shows that the phone had any serious issues. There was no frequent complaints for the phone as alleged. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defects to the phone with the available documents produced. Issue is found against the complainant.

9. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of March 2018

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sheen Jose, Member.

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Appendix

Complainant's Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Copy of Invoice dt. 30-01-2015

A2 : Copy of Retail Invoice dt. 27-07-2015

A3 : Copy of important note

Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil