Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/469/2015

Anju walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ravinder Pal singh

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/469/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	27/07/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	07/01/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Anju Walia w/o Sh. Pardeep Kumar, resident of H.No.1799, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh - 160030.

             

…............Complainant

Vs

 

(1)  Sony India Pvt. Limited, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044, through its Managing Director/Auth. Representative.

 

(2)  Reliance Retail Limited, Ellante Mall, Shop No.247, Second Floor, Plot No.178 & 178A, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002, through its Proprietor/Auth. Representative.

 

(3)  Rai & Sons, SCO 60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh - 160047, through its Auth. Representative.

 

…............. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    MRS.SURJEET KAUR                PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA        MEMBER

 

Present:      Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, Counsel for Complainant.

            Sh. Rajesh Gaur, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

            Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

            Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

1.      The concise facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased one Sony Xperia C2305 mobile handset on 17.05.2014 for Rs.17,999/- from Opposite Party No.2, along with extended warranty of one additional year for Rs.1433/- vide invoice Annexure C-1. Copy of the warranty contract containing terms & conditions of the additional warranty is annexed as Annexure C-2. It has been alleged that the mobile handset, in question, was deposited with the Opposite Party No.3, on account of non-display problem on 19.06.2014, 31.03.2015 and eventually, on 06.04.2015, since when it was lying with the Opposite Party No.3 (Job Cards Annex. C-3 & C-4). It has been also alleged that the Opposite Party No.3 told the Complainant that the warranty of her mobile handset become void, as she got it repaired from some unauthorized service centre and rather demanded Rs.12,895/- for repairing the same or in the alternative, the Complainant was given an offer of 20% discount on purchase of any other new mobile set. Since the Complainant never got the disputed mobile handset repaired from any other Service Centre, except Opposite Party No.3, she sent various e-mails to Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, requesting them to resolve the issue and got the mobile repaired free of cost under the warranty/extended warranty, but to no avail (E-mails Annexure C-5). Hence, according to the Complainant the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to elicit any fruitful results, she filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 05.11.2015.

 

3.      The Opposite Party No.1, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant was using the mobile handset in question for over 10 months without any troubles before she approached the Authorized Service Centre on 31.3.2015. It is submitted that on inspection of the handset, the Authorized Service Centre found that the handset had been externally damaged and tampered with, as a result whereof the warranty on the handset of the Complainant was rendered void. It is further submitted that where the warranty of the handset is void, any repairs that would be conducted by the Opposite Parties, thereafter, would be done on a chargeable basis alone. The aforesaid findings of the Authorized Service Centre were communicated to the Complainant along with a repair estimate, however, the said repair estimate was rejected by the Complainant and thereafter, she has not collected the handset from the Authorized Service Centre. It has been asserted that Opposite Party No.1 had even offered the Complainant a refurbished handset at a 50% discount or a fresh handset at 80% of the MRP of the handset, as a goodwill gesture, on 27.08.2015, however, the Complainant had rejected the said offer. Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Party NO.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.      The Opposite Party No.2, in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that it being a Retailer deals with sale of mobile phones manufactured by various manufacturers, has no contribution in the manufacturing of the product in any of its stage and is thus not liable for any alleged manufacturing defect in the product. It has been urged that liability of post sales service is always undertaken by the Manufacturer alone through its Service Centres and in the present case, the Manufacturer of the phone i.e. M/s Sony India Pvt. Limited is providing all after sales services to the products manufactured by them. Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant also filed separate rejoinders to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statements by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1.  

 

8.      It is evident from Annexure C-1 dated 17.05.2014 that the Complainant purchased one Sony Xperia C2305 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.17,999/-. As per the case of the Complainant she paid Rs.1433/- for extended warranty of one additional year. Annexure C-2 is the warranty contract containing terms & conditions of the additional warranty. As per the Complainant when the handset in question got defected the defect was rectified by Opposite Party No.3 vide Annexure C-3. But when the handset in question was deposited with Opposite Party No.3 on 06.04.2015 vide Annexure C-4, the defect could not be rectified and Opposite Party No.3 demanded huge amount of Rs.12,895/- for repairing the handset. The allegation of the Complainant is that the defect in the mobile handset in question could not be rectified by the Opposite Parties as it was having manufacturing defect in it. The said handset is lying with the Opposite Party No.3, till date.  

 

9.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that the defect in the handset in question has been induced by the Complainant herself. It has been contended that the mobile handset when deposited with Opposite Party No.3 was extremely damaged and tampered with as a result the warranty of Opposite Party No.1 was rendered void on the handset. Opposite Party No.1 has annexed Annexure OPW1/2 copy of the coloured pictures of the defected handset, Annexure OPW1/3 terms & conditions of the warranty and copy of letter offering the Complainant a refurbished handset at a 50% discount or a fresh handset at 80% of the maximum retail price of the handset as Annexure OPW1/4.

 

10.      After going through the facts of the case, it is evident from Annexure C-4 the job-sheet dated 16.4.2015 that the condition of the set mentioned is “Scratched, back cover crack & Screw missing”. Moreover, Opposite Party No.1 has also attached Annexure OPW1/2 the coloured photographs of the mobile handset in question with specific mention of “Display Crack”, “Liquid Intrusion Indicator Missing” indicating the same.

 

11.      The Complainant has alleged that the defect in the mobile handset in question could not be rectified as it had some inherent manufacturing defect. But the Complainant herself has not produced any cogent/ authentic document on record to prove the same. Pertinently, the Complainant used the handset in question for approximately one year without any major defect. If we go through the terms of the warranty conditions (Annexure OPW1/3), it is written at page no.67 under Clause 3 that this warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, misuse or failure to use in accordance with the Sony instructions for use and maintenance of the product, tampering with any of the seals on the product will void the warranty etc. It is thus evident that being physically damaged, despite within the warranty period, the mobile handset, in question, could not be rectified under the warranty terms. It is submitted at Pg. No.73 in Para C that the Complainant herself refused the collection of unrepaired set being in impression that even after being physically damaged, it will be repaired under warranty. Therefore, Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for her own decision of non-collecting the same from the Opposite Parties. 

 

12.      Henceforth, judged from every angle and in view of the foregoings, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainant has not been able to prove her case of alleged deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Therefore, we do not find any merit, weight and substance in the present complaint. Thus, the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

13.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07^th January,2016                                        

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER