Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/95/2015

Amaninder Singh Gill - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sunil Kalra Adv.

08 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	95 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	23.02.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	08.01.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Amarinder Singh Gill s/o Mr.Harpal Singh Gill, Resident of House No.1629, Phase-VII, Mohali (Punjab). 

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Sony India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, having its Place of Business at A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044

 

2]  Sony India Pvt. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, having its Local Branch Office at Plot No.50, Adarsh mall, 3^rd Floor, Industrial & Business Park, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

 

3]  M/s Three Vee Marketing (P) Ltd. (Authorised Retailer) being represented through its Managing Director having its Place of Business at SCO No.1028-1029, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

4]  M/s Rai & Sons through its Authorised Signatory (Authorised Service Centre) having its Place of Business at SCO No.60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Amit Arora, Adv. for Opposite    Parties No.2,3 & 4.

                       

Opposite Party No.1 exparte.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased mobile handset of make Sony Xperia Z3 Compact D5833 from Opposite Party No.3, manufactured by OPs No.1 & 2, for Rs.40,950/- on 16.11.2014 having one year warranty (Ann.C-1 & C-1/A).  Unfortunately, the said handset fell in the bucket full of water accidently at the house of the complainant and thereafter, the mobile became dead and was not switching on. Then, the complainant took the handset to Opposite Party NO.4 – an authorised service centre on 30.12.2014 and reported the said problem of dropping of phone in water, but Opposite Party No.2 returned it without repairing saying that in case of repair the expenses shall be more than 50% of the cost of the handset (Ann.C-2). It is averred that Opposite Party No.4 was duty bound to replace the phone under warranty conditions being the authorised service agent, but it had refused and neglected to the same, which caused mental tension and agony to the complainant. 

         It is pleaded that the complainant has even searched the warranty conditions of said Xperia Handset on internet from which it reveals that Opposite Party No.1 before launching the handset had conducted various tests as per which it has been mentioned that in case of immersion upto 1 meter, the report was ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible and the test duration was 30 minutes and beyond 1 meter upto 3 meter, the test duration was continuous in which it has been provided that water can enter the mobile but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effect.  It is also pleaded that the mobile given to the complainant has not given the desired result; it has patent defect and being sold under the garb of false assurance and misrepresentation (Ann.C-5).  It is submitted that the act and conduct of the OPs of selling the defective handset having patent defect and thereafter ignoring inherent manufacturing defect in the handset in question amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 though being duly served through registered post-dated 27.02.2015, failed to put in appearance on 31.03.2015, thus raising presumption under Sub-clause (2) of Regulation 10 of The Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, was proceeded exparte vide order dated 31.3.2015.

 

         The Opposite Party No.2 to 4 have filed reply and admitted the sale of the handset in question. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the handset in question. It is submitted that on inspection of the handset, after being brought by the complainant with complaint of “can’t power on (phone is dead)”, it was observed that there was water ingression in the handset, thereby rendering the handset defective and the warranty term void and vitiated.  It is submitted that as the warranty on the handset was rendered void due to external cause of water ingression, free of cost repair of the handset was left completely out of question.  It is asserted that the handset became defective due to misuse and non-adherence to the compulsory and mandated guidelines as mentioned in the User Guide.  It is also asserted that the OPs offered the complainant the exchange of the handset with a new refurbished handset on payment of 33% of its MRP or a completely new handset on payment of 50% of the MRP, but the complainant did not care to respond and instead filed complaint.  Even thereafter, as a goodwill gesture, the complainant was sent offer letter dated 19.3 2015 (Ann.R-5), but to no use.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OPs No.2 to 4 and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the score that he had purchased one Sony Xperia Z-3 Mobile Handset by paying an amount of Rs.40,950/-. However, unfortunately on 29.12.2014, the complainant accidently dropped the mobile handset in water bucket, although all the ports of the mobile handset were plugged and the same was immediately retrieved from the bucket, the mobile handset stopped working and the same was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.4, who on inspection declared that there was an ingress of water inside the mobile handset in question and therefore, due to breach of warranty terms & conditions, neither it was repairable free of cost nor replaceable.  However, the complainant was given a rough estimate to the tune of 50% of the cost of the mobile handset, as repair charges, to which he refused claiming that he was entitled for free of cost repair or replacement, as per warranty terms & conditions, which he was made to understand at the time of purchase of mobile handset.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, has sought the quoted relief.

 

6]       The Opposite Party No.1 preferred not to join the proceedings, even though being properly served, and hence was proceeded exparte vide order dated 31.3.2015. 

 

7]       The Opposite Party No.2 to 4 while contesting the claim of the complainant, have claimed that though the present case pertains to breach of warranty terms & conditions by the complainant, as he failed to take due care while using the mobile handset and allow it to drop in bucket full of water, due to which the water had entered inside the mobile handset and therefore, the answering Opposite Parties could not be held liable for the claims, which have been demanded by the complainant through the present complaint.  The OPs have also claimed that out of goodwill gesture, the complainant was given an offer that Opposite Parties are ready to replace the mobile handset in question with a refurbished handset, if he agreed to give it off 1/3^rd of the price of the mobile in question.  The OPs have pointed out this issue by claiming that an e-mail was sent to this effect, to which the complainant preferred to ignore while preferring the present complaint. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on their part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

8]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the present dispute has arisen due to the admitted case of ingress of water in the mobile handset, which is related to the event of the slipping of the handset from the handset of the complainant and getting sub-merged in a water bucket, even though when all the ports of mobile handset were securely plugged, as per Para No.5 of the complaint, which is duly supported by his detailed affidavit, reiterating the averments to this effect. 

 

9]       The complainant has also pointed out the fact that in the given situation, there was no possibility of ingress of water, as the mobile handset in question was manufactured in such manner and had such features that it could resist any ingress of water in it upto the depth of 1.5 meters of water for at least 30 minutes, whereas in the present case, the water has entered the handset in question, even though the water bucket was hardly 1 ½ feet deep and that too with all the ports were closed.  In such circumstances, the complainant has alleged that either the mobile handset had an inherent manufacturing defect or the claims of the OPs were false and misleading.  On both these scores, the present complaint deserve to succeed against the Opposite Parties. 

 

10]      It is necessary to mention here that though there is a mention of two different offers from the side of the Opposite Parties in which the complainant was offered an exchange of a factory refurbished handset at the price of 33% of MRP of the handset in question or in the alternative exchange of the handset with a new one at the price of 50% of the MRP, as per Ann.R-4, dated 19.3.2015.  It is evident from the date of presenting the present complaint that this offer was conveyed to the complainant after the present complaint was already filed before this Forum on 23.2.2015.  It is also observed that the opinion with regard to the breach of warranty terms & conditions is not found mentioned in the Service Job Sheet (Ann.C-2) nor there is any mention about the charging of any fee towards the repair of the handset in question.  Therefore, the reply of the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 is totally bereft of any evidence to support their version.  It is also observed that the person while preparing the Job Sheet did not ask the complainant whether he had taken the precaution of plugging of all the ports of the mobile handset before it had dropped in water bucket and in such set of circumstances, the reply of OPs No.2 to 4, about the complainant not having taken due care while using the mobile handset, cannot be believed, as it is not in tandem with the evidence placed on record by the Opposite Parties.

 

11]      Therefore, the denial of the benefit of warranty terms & conditions to the complainant, who was qualified and deserved the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties on account of which the present complaint deserves to succeed against them. 

 

12]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

 

 [a] To refund an amount of Rs.40,950/- being cost of the defective handset in question to the complainant;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

8^th January, 2016                                                                  

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.95 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 8th day of January, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against the Opposite Parties.                     After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member