Order No. 11 dt. 20/03/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone from o.p. no.1 and he availed of the loan facility from Bajaj Finance. After the purchase the complainant noticed some problem with the mobile set and thereafter he took the hand set to o.p. no.3. After examination of the mobile phone the complainant was told that the problem in the mobile set was liquid ingression, for repairing of the same o.p. no.3 demanded Rs.18,500/-. The complainant in reply to the mail informed that the mobile set was covered under warranty. The complainant thereafter sent a lawyer’s notice to o.ps. on 10.10.14 asking them to either replace the mobile phone or to repay the amount paid along with interest cost of Rs.10,000/- for physical discomfort. The o.p. no.2 replied the said letter whereby o.p. no.2 refused to replace the hand set but offered the complainant to buy any other Sony X-Peria hand set of any model from their current range at 80% of MRP of that model. The o.p. no.2 also informed the complainant that the hand set was sent to the service centre on 23.8.14 after crossing the accidental damage cover period. The complainant thereafter informed the o.p. no.2 that he was not agreeable to purchase the new Sony X-Peria hand set since there was deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice the complainant filed this case praying for refund of the entire some of Rs.34,216/- and Rs.10,000/- for cost and other financial reliefs.
In spite of receipt of notices the o.p. nos.1 and 3 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.
The o.p. no.2 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that a warranty of one year on its product from the time of his original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty period provided by it and cannot be liable for the claims following outside the scope of the warranty. Relevant terms of warranty provided by o.p. no.2 to the complainant are as follows: Subject to the conditions of this limited warranty, Sony warrants this products to be free from defects in design, material and workmanship at the time of original purchase by a customer and for a subsequent period for one year which is the warranty period.
If during the warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship, the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein.
This warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal warrantor or due to misuse, nor does not this warranty cover any failure of the product due to the accident modification or adjustment, acts of god or damage resulting from liquid.
The warranty does not cover damage or defects caused by abuse or improper use of device. If the customer had any question about the use of the product he could have referred to customer service for help. The complainant has admitted in the complaint that the said came into contact with the rain water which many chemical while fallen on earth. In view of such fact o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case since the defect arose in the said mobile was caused due to the fault of the complainant, therefore o.p. no.2 cannot be held liable for refund of the amount or other reliefs claimed by the complainant.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the mobile set from o.p. no.1.
- Whether the complainant found the defect in the said mobile within the warranty period.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the mobile set from o.p. no.1 manufactured by o.p. no.2 and during the warranty period the complainant noticed that the mobile was not functioning properly and he contacted the o.p. no.3 who after examination of the mobile set demanded an amount of Rs.18,500/- which the complainant refused to pay and made correspondences with o.p. no.2 by raising the point with since the mobile set was not functioning properly during the warranty period the complainant should be provided with the refund of the amount of the said mobile set and also to pay compensation for the harassment faced by the complainant.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.2 argued that the mobile set was found defective due to wrong user of the mobile phone by the complainant himself for which there was water ingression causing defects on various parts of the said mobile. Ld. lawyer emphasized that the hand set fell down on the earth for which those defects arose and as such, o.p. no.2 cannot be held liable for refund of the money or for change of the hand set. Apart from the said fact o.p. no.2 offered the complainant to purchase another set manufactured by o.p. no.2 with the reduction of 20% discount but the complainant did not avail of that opportunity, on the contrary as to put pressure upon o.p. no.2 claimed the fabulous amount which is not at all feasible. In view of the said fact ld. lawey4r for o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties and on perusal of the entire materials on record as well as evidence adduced by the parties it appears that the mobile set was purchased from o.p. no.1 and the complainant alleged the fact that the mobile set had some defects during the warranty period but o.p. no.2 during the examination of the mobile set found that there was liquid ingression and the complainant emphasized that the demand of o.p. no.3 for removal of the said mobile set for which he charged Rs.18,500/- which was an excessive amount. On perusal of the materials on record it is crystal clear that the complainant after purchase of the said mobile set on 27.7.14 approached the o.p. no.3 on 23.8.14 with certain issues after inspection it was found that the hand set was found with liquid ingression which was duly demonstrated to the complainant by the service officials of o.p. no.3. It appears that there was no inherent defect for which the complainant will be entitled to get the refund of the entire amount as claimed by him. The mobile set was not properly handled which resulted in liquid damage and the complainant failed to abide by the instruction provided in the user guide for which the phone got damaged. Apart from the said fact the complainant himself admitted that due to coming in contact with rain which also mixed with many chemical while the same fell on the earth, therefore since the said defect does not come within the conditions stipulated in the warranty clause, accordingly, we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.744/2014 is dismissed on contest against the o.p. no.2 and dismissed ex parte against the other o.ps. without cost. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
