O R D E R

By  Smt.Sreeja.S, Member :

          The case of the complainant is that on 6/3/2015 he purchased C6902 XPERIA mobile phone manufactured by 3^rd opposite party for Rs.27,000/-  from 1^st opposite party dealer as per Invoice No.SST3776, as 1^st opposite party made  believed complainant that it is a good quality  product.  The inserted sim was not activating in the mobile phone.  So he contacted the 1^st opposite party.  On instruction of 1^st opposite party, the complainant contacted 2^nd opposite party service centre for servicing the mobile phone and   the phone entrusted with them for servicing.  Till date they did not return it.  Hence he caused a lawyer notice  dated 12/10/15, but yielded no result.  Hence this complaint.

          2.On receiving complaint, notice served properly to the opposite parties.  1^st opposite party remained absent and set exparte. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed its version.  The contents of version is as follows:1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are the authorized dealer and the authorized service centre of the 3^rd opposite party manufacturer.  The complainant has purchased XPERI Z1 model No.C6902, having IMEL No.358094058521510 on 6/3/15.  However the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party on 3/10/2015 with an issue of sim slot damage detecting in the said handset.  However,  on examination by the service engineer of answering opposite parties vide job sheet No.W115100104243, it was found that the  alleged defects in the mobile phone were due to complainant’s own misuse or mishandling and there were clear  sign of external damage due to water ingression as the Litmus paper turned red for which the complainant is liable.  It was communicated to the complainant that “evidently this is a case of physical  damage caused due to liquid ingression and hence warranty is rendered void and the answering opposite parties are willing to repair the set but the same would be done on payment of charges”.  The estimate for repair for Rs.10,380/- was also handed over to the complainant.  But the complainant rejected the offer of the answering opposite parties and was insisted for free repair.  The complainant sent a legal notice to the answering opposite parties, which was duly replied by answering opposite parties vide  reply legal notice dated 8/1/2016 and in the said reply also it was communicated to the complainant that the present case is of physical damage and therefore free of cost repair would not be possible under warranty policy.   But the answering opposite parties assured that the said product would be repaired on paid service.  There is no lack or deficiency in service by the answering opposite parties and the complainant has made a case which is completely false and frivolous in nature and prayed for dismissal.

          3. Points for consideration are :

1)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2)If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

          4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and 4 documents marked as Exts.P1 to P4.  No documents filed by opposite parties.

          5. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a C6902 XPERIA mobile phone manufactured  by 3^rd opposite party from 1^st opposite party dealer.  Due to some defects regarding sim activation for the instrument the same was produced before 2^nd opposite party service centre.  In this case both the parties did not adduce oral evidence.   Opposite parties admits the  purchase and also producing the same with the 2^nd opposite party service centre.    Ext.P1 prove the purchase.  Ext.P2 service job sheet proves the service accorded by 2^nd opposite party.  The specific case of the complainant is that 2^nd opposite party received the instrument for repairs but till now it was not returned.  This aspect is no way denied or answered in the version of 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties.  Moreover no evidence has been adduced to rattle the case of the complainant.  Hence this Commission finds that the case of the complainant to this aspect stands proved.  The only dispute of opposite party is that the defect appeared in the instrument  was due to mishandling by the complainant and also water has been engrossed  into the mobile phone.  To substantiate their case no evidence adduced or produced the instrument by them before this Commission.  Hence their case miserably fails and the complainant could establish a tenable case before this Commission.

          6.From the above discussions and considering the evidence as a whole, this Commission is inclined to allow this complaint.

          7.In the result complaint is allowed and hereby direct the 3^rd opposite party to pay Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven thousand only) being the value of the mobile phone.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) each  as compensation to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Failing in which all the amount carries 6% interest from the date of this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission  this the  16^th   day  of July   2021.

Sd/-                                                             Sd/-

Sreeja.S                                                       C.T.Sabu                       

Member                                                       President                           

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext.P1 Copy of cash bill

Ext.P2  copy of service job sheet

Ext.P3 copy of lawyer notice dtd.12/10/15

Ext.P4  series A/D cards                                   

                                                                                          Id/-

                                                                                      Member