BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 633/2015 Filed on 30.12.2015

ORDER DATED: 29.05.2018

Complainants:

1. K. Sasi, residing at Seethal, Kurumkutty, Parassala Village, Parassala P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 502.

2. Kumari Swetha J. Sasi,        ..do..                     ..do..

                                       (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Dellhi-110 044.

2. The Proprietor, Sony Centre, QRS Retails Ltd., Sycamore Complex, First Floor, 11/1953, Plamoodu, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

This case having been heard on 20.04.2018, the Forum on 29.05.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

Case of the complainant is as follows:  For the purpose of pursuing studies of the 2^nd complainant he wanted to purchase a Sony (Xperia TM T2 Ultra dual D5322), mobile phone.  As such the 1^st complainant gave money to the 2^nd complainant for purchasing the said mobile phone.  Pursuant to that the 2^nd complainant on 31.01.2015 purchased a Sony mobile phone from the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs. 22,990/-.  The 1^st opposite party imported the said phone and supplied it to the 2^nd opposite party for retail sale.  The said mobile phone has become faulty just after nine months of its purchase as its alarm was continuously running making voice which could not be stopped. With the result the instrument has become useless.  Sensing that the said mobile phone became faulty 2^nd complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party to get it repaired.  But the 2^nd opposite party was reluctant even to receive the faulty phone.  Instead he advised the 2^nd complainant to give it to the nearby Sony Service Centre.  As such 2^nd complainant approached the Sony Service Centre, through her cousin brother, namely Akhil Anand on 11.11.2015 which is functioning nearby to the shop of the 2^nd opposite party.  But the said service centre authorities demanded Rs. 15,000/- for repairing the said mobile phone, while warranty is in existence.  They also advised that since the market value of the said phone is now reduced to Rs. 15,000/-, it is better to purchase another mobile phone instead of repairing the said phone by paying Rs. 15,000/-.  It is pertinent to note that the said mobile phone was faulty just after nine months from date of its purchase, that too within the warranty period.  So it is the bounden duty of both opposite parties either to repair or replace the said mobile phone without charging any amount.  But the service centre authorities demanded Rs. 15,000/- for repairing the said mobile phone which is illegal, arbitrary and against the terms of warranty as well.  They refused to repair the said phone without charging amount for service.  In the above circumstances, in order to avoid litigation, 2^nd complainant issued an advocate notice to the opposite parties on 24.11.2015 calling upon them either to repair or replace the said phone within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice.  Even though the opposite parties received the notice they did not turn up positively to redress the grievances of the complainants.  Hence this complaint. 

Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version contending as follows:  That in the present case the complainant has purchased Sony Xperia T2 D5322 phone on 31.01.2015.  However the complainant approached the service centre on 11.11.2015 with an issue of touch not working in the said handset.  However, on examination by the service engineer of the opposite parties, the 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 only the complainant was 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 opposite parties are willing to repair the set but eh same would be done on payment of charges.  It was communicated to the complainant that evidently this is a case of physical damage caused due to liquid ingression and hence warranty has been rendered void and opposite parties are willing to repair the set but the same would be done on payment of charges.  The estimate for repair for Rs. 13,938/- was also handed over to the complainant.  But the complainant rejected the offer of the opposite parties and was adamant for free repair.  It is submitted that opposite parties always keep its customers at a very high pedestal and the complainant was offered best services.  Thus, to allege that there was lack of prompt service is baseless and concocted.  Further the complainant sent legal notice dated 24.11.2015 to opposite parties which was duly replied by opposite parties vide reply notice dated 05.01.2016 and in the said reply also it was communicated to the complainant that the present case is a case of physical damage and therefore free of cost repair would not be possible under warranty terms but the opposite parties are willing to repair the set on payment of charges, still the complainant filed the present complaint.  Hence the complaint deserves dismissal on this ground alone.  The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2508 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission holding that the terms of warranty were binding on the parties and that the liability undertaken in contract between parties should be limited to extent undertaken and the warranty terms in the present case clearly mention that in case of external damage to the handset, the warranty terms would be rendered void.  Thus it is apparent that there is no lack or deficiency in service by or ends of the opposite parties and the complainant has made a case which is completely false and frivolous in nature.  The complainant with the sole intention of tarnishing the reputation of the opposite parties and for wrongful gain has filed a false and fabricated case against the opposite parties.   

Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit along with documents which were not marked in evidence before this Forum.  Though complainant is alleging manufacturing defect within warranty period, no expert opinion is before us to prove the same, since no expert opinion was taken out by the complainants to prove their allegations.  Opposite parties on the other hand submits that the defect was due to water ingression, one which is outside of warranty terms, can only be rectified through payment by the complainant.  Estimate for the same was also informed to them.  But they were not ready to do rectification on payment. Instead they pray for free rectification under warranty, which is not possible.  This statement was affirmed by the complainants in their complaint also.  Here after filing affidavit, no evidence was adduced.  So we are of the opinion that complainants failed miserably to establish their complaint, which is only to be dismissed. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed.  

   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of May 2018.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

                        R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb