Order No.  10  dt.  14/03/2017

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone on 27.6.13 from o.p. no.2, the authorized agent of Sony by paying a sum of Rs.36,000/-. The mobile phone at the time of purchase was given warranty for a period of one year by o.p. no.1, manufacturer. After using the said mobile for a few months the mobile was found not working properly for which the complainant asked to o.p. no.2 the authorized service centre of o.p. no.1 who charged a sum of Rs.100/- for inspection and informed that due to water ingression the mobile set was showing ‘no power’. The complainant asked the o.p. no.2 for exchange of mobile set but she was offered to exchange the mobile set after discounting 20% of the value of the said mobile which the complainant denied. In view of such fact the complainant filed the case with the allegation that o.p. committed unfair trade practice. The complainant therefore prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.36,000/- along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            In spite of receipt of notices the o.ps. did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.ps.

            The complainant did not file any affidavit on evidence and stated by filing a petition that the petition of complaint be treated as evidence.

            In order to prove the case the complainant filed the documents including the invoice wherefrom it is evident that the complainant purchased the mobile set from o.p. no.2. During the period of warranty the mobile set was found not working properly for which the complainant went at the service centre of the company, but the service centre detected the fault that due to water ingression the said defect arose. The complainant wanted to have the refund of the money of the said mobile set to which the o.p. no.1 denied but offered the complainant to provide another mobile set with a discount to 20% which the complainant did not accept subsequently filed this case praying for refund of the amount as well as compensation and cost.

            On perusal of the materials on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a mobile set manufactured by Sony through o.p. no.2. The complainant claimed during the period of warranty defect arose and for that purpose the complainant before filing of this case praying for demand of the amount from the manufacturer which was replied by o.p. no.1 whereby it was stated that the authorized service centre after examining the said mobile set came to the conclusion that the mobile set was not functioning due to ‘no power’ in the said mobile set. Subsequently in the letter written by the company to the complainant it was mentioned that the product is water resistant as per certain international standard, provided the parts which kept closed. Upon physical inspection of the product the engineers of the company found that the mobile set was damaged due to external cause of liquid ingression and as per the terms and conditions of the warranty the said defect was not covered under the warranty clause. The o.p. no.1 offered to exchange at a discount price in respect of the said mobile but the complainant refused to accept the said offer. The complainant was even given the option to enjoy the full warranty after availing of the new product. In view of such fact o.p. no.1 was not agreeable to the proposal of the refund of the amount.

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the complainant was offered to exchange the said mobile set by giving further extended period of warranty but the complainant did not avail of that offer and refused to accept the said proposal. It is also found from the materials on record that the mobile set was not functioning due to non response to the charge in the battery for which no power was mentioned by the authorized service centre. After inspection it was found that there was liquid ingression and as per warranty terms and conditions the service is not covered under warranty in case of defect arose due to external cause of liquid ingression, therefore o.p. no.1 did not commit any unfair trade practice to compensate the complainant as claimed by her.

            Having regard to the facts and circumstances we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.126/2015 is dismissed ex parte against the o.ps. without cost.    

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.