THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 386/2013

Dated this the 20^th day of November 2017

                     (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.             :  President)

                          Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A             : Member

                          Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB   : Member   ​

ORDER

Present: Beena Joseph, Member:

            This petition was filed on 27.08.2013.  The case of the complainant is tha, he had purchased a Sony Ericsson WT 13 I Model phone from the opposite party on 16.09.12 for an amount of Rs.5100/-.  It has got one year warranty.  After three months of purchase the display and sound of the phone became reduced after 11 months it was dead.  Then the complainant approached the service center of the 1^st opposite party they examined the phone and stated that the board became complaint, it requires huge amount for repair.  Complainant demanded for warranty clause but they declined the same.  This matter was intimated to the dealer, he stated that the service center address provided in the bill and the petitioner can approach them for service.  As per the bill Axel System near Salkara hotel Nadakkavu  is the authorized service center.  When approach them they declined to honour the warranty.  Due to the complaint of the mobile phone complainant has sustained financial loss, time loss and loss of informations which   caused mental agony.  Hence he is entitled to get Rs.5100/- as the price of phone and a compensation of Rs.25000/-.

            Notice issued to both parties both of them appeared.  Opposite parties filed version jointly.

            Opposite parties denies all the allegations and averments in the petition.  First of all they submitted that, the Sony Ericsson has been amalgamated with Sony Mobile communications India Pvt Ltd.  And it was taken over by them.  Second opposite party is the authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party.  The above complaint is vexatious baseless and abuse of process and is liable to be dismissed.  Sony is a reputed firm selling branded items named Sony who are having wide net work and dealers and service center across the country.  Opposite party is liable to comply the conditions of the warranty, not liable for the claims falling outside the scope of warranty.  Opposite party admits that, complainant had purchased the above Sony mobile on 16.09.13 which having one year warranty.  As per the warranty provision opposite party is liable to provide free cost of repair on its products.  In cases the product is proved to be defective due to improper material, workmanship, any manufacturing defect or any other problem that has arisen in the product from the manufacturer side and not when the defect has arisen due to an external cause which is beyond the control of opposite party.  The complainant fails to get a report of expert with regard to the alleged defect.  The complainant was not produced any evidence to show that he was duly and promptly attended the service center of opposite party.  And there is no evidence to show that there is loss and inconvenience sustained by him.

            The complainant never approached the authorized service center of 1^st opposite party with any complaints.  The warranty terms states, that the customer has to approach authorized service center of 1^st opposite party with details as per the warranty conditions.  In this matter complainant never approached the service center with any complaints with regard to his hand set.  He has directly approached the Forum with unclean hands in order to gain unlawful enrichment.  The allegations are false and baseless and it is liable to be dismissed.  The Axel Systems where the complainant approached for repair  is not an authorized service center of opposite party.  And this opposite party is not liable for the same.  The opposite party herein repeatedly requested to the complainant to deposit the handset so that the same can be repaired by the authorized service center.  However despite of the request the complainant failed to deposit the handset with the service center is now demanding refund of the set with compensation opposite party cannot give such unreasonable demands of the customers.  The above   complaint is filed to make wrongful gain from the opposite parties. Consumer Protection Act  is being a beneficial  Legislation  the same cannot be used as a  mechanism  to arm twist the companies to agree to the unreasonable demands of  the consumers. The opposite parties seeks leave of the Forum to reserve its liberty to urge additional grounds and documents in support of defense during the proceedings if any in view of the grounds raised above, it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost and the complainant be directed to deposit the handset with the 1^st opposite party for inspection and repair.

            In this matter complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1 Ext.A1 marked.  Ext.A1 is the bill of the product, opposite party filed affidavit Ext.B1 & B2 marked.  

Issues to be considered.

1. Is there any illegal trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. If yes, what are the reliefs?

In this matter the purchase of Sony handset is not disputed by any of the opposite parties.  It is stated that the phone became dead after 11 months of purchase by the complainant.  The above product has got one year warranty as per the warranty conditions.  So it can be concluded that the above defect caused within the warranty period.  Ext.A1 is the bill for the purchase of the handset.  As per Ext.A1 the handset was purchased from 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A1 further states the details of service center of 1^st opposite party. As per Ext.A1 Axel System near Salkara Hotel East Nadakkavu, Calicut is the service center of 1^st opposite party.  Complainant’s alleges that he had approached the above service center for repair.  But they declined to honour the warranty conditions.  At the same time the opposite party herein states that M/s. Axel System is not the service center of the 1^st opposite party.  The above contention is against the terms in Ext.A1.

      Admittedly the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party.  And as per Ext.A1 bill issued by 2^nd opposite party shows that M/s Axel System is the authorized service center of 1^st opposite party, but now the 1^st opposite party denies the same.  This creates a doubt regarding the dealings of 1^st opposite party.  If 1^st opposite party admits Ext.A1 they ought to have recognize the service center also.  Some times 1^st opposite party might to have terminated the service of Axel Systems but they have not given any notice to the customers and dealers.  This amounts to service deficiency on the part of 1^st opposite party.  Hence 1^st opposite party is liable to honour the claims raised by the complainant.  1^st opposite party cannot get of the liability on the basis of termination of service center.

      The complainant proves that he had approached Axel Systems for repairing the product as service center of 1^st opposite party, within the warranty period.  If the service centre was terminated that should have been intimated to the public and customer of 1^st opposite party but 1^st opposite party has not taken any steps to that effect.  In this situation we cannot blame a consumer.  It is clear that the handset was not repaired by the service center within the warranty period.  And the complaint also filed within the warranty period.  Disowning   a service centre by the manufacturer without intimating the matter to the customer is a crime which will affect the interest of the customer adversely.  So in this circumstance it is clear that there was service deficiency and illegal trade practice on the part of 1^st opposite party. Definitely if the warranty period is completed the company will disown the claim.  In this circumstance the grievance of the complainant has to be honoured.  In the result the petitioner is entitled to get the cost of the handset.  Other damages occurred by the complainant could not be proved by him.

      Therefore we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5100/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred only)as the cost of the mobile, and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation for illegal trade practice and Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) as cost.  Complainant is directed to return the handset after receiving the amount from the opposite parties.   

Dated this 20^th  day of November 2017.

Date of filing: 27.08.2013.

      SD/-MEMBER                               SD/-PRESIDENT                       SD/-MEMBER 

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Cash bill for Rs.5100/- issued by 2^nd opposite party dtd.16.08.2012.           

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1. Copy of the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dtd.23.07.2013.

B2. Copy of the Sony India Pvt.Ltd vide Board Resolution dtd.04.07.2011.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Dhaneesh.V.R.(Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None.

                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT