IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
C C No. 230/2015
Friday, the 29th day of July, 2016
Petitioners : Ansar H.A.
S/o. Abdulkhadar,
Thekkeveettil,
Peerumedu P.O. Idukki Dist.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
A 31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial
Estate, Madhura Road,
New Delhi – 110044.
(Adv. Shwetha Bharti, Adv. Anil Tiwar and
Adv. Shijo George)
2) The Manager,
Madona Care Centre,
Door No. XIV/54,
Thekkekkuttu Building,
K.K. Road, Kanjikuzhi,
Kottayam – 686 004.
3) Proprietor, Mobile Care,
Purayidathil Complex,
Near Jawahar Theatre,
College Road, Kothamangalam.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 26/08/2015 is as follows.
The complainant on 13/09/2014 purchased a Sony Xperia Z1 model phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 3rd opposite party for Rs.34,500/-. According to the complainant, 3rd opposite party assured that the said phone is having rating of IP 55 and IP 58 standard and it can be used in fresh water up to 1.5 meters deep for 30 minutes. It is also mentioned in the startup Guide issued by the opposite party. And the opposite parties also assured in their advertisement that the phone is water resistant. And also assured that the said mobile phone is having one year warranty. According to the complainant on believing above said assurance he had purchased the mobile phone. According to the complainant on 14/05/2015 the said mobile phone became defective, so he had entrusted the mobile phone with the 2nd opposite party. The bill and warranty card were showed to the 2nd opposite party. And the 2nd opposite party informed that they would repair or replace the same, since the defect is within warranty period and they issued a job sheet. After two weeks, he had enquired about the mobile phone with the 2nd opposite party and they demanded Rs.20,000/- as service charge for the repairing of the mobile phone. And they informed that they are not ready to replace the same. Then the complainant on several times made complaint before the 1st opposite party. But the opposite parties have not cared to repair or replace the complainant’s mobile phone. According to the complainant, the said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
Opposite parties jointly filed version contenting that on inspection of the mobile phone by the opposite party it is found the mobile was dead due to physical damage and resultant water ingression and lot of parts were to be replaced. Hence no warranty can be extended. Therefore it could only be repaired on charge basis. It was explained and an estimated dated 23/05/2015 was handed over to the complainant. But the complainant refused to pay, so the handset could not be repaired. According to the opposite parties, the defect of the mobile phone is due to the negligent and mishandling by the complainant, and opposite parties are not liable to replace the same. And there is no deficiency in service on the part of them. So they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of the Proof affidavit of both sides and Ext.A1 to A5 documents.
Point No.1
The complainant’s case is that his newly purchased mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party become defective within warrant period and the opposite parties has not replace or repair the same. They demanded Rs.20,000/- as service charges for the repairing. According to the complainant, the complaint of the mobile phone is due to the manufacturing defect. The complainant produced the invoice issued by the 3rd opposite party and the same is marked as Ext.A1. From Ext.A1 it can be seen that the date of purchase is on 13/09/2014 and the price of the mobile phone is 34,500/-. Ext.A2 is the warranty card. In Ext.A2, it is stated that the mobile phone is having 12 months warranty. Ext.A4 is the service job sheet dtd.16/05/2015 issued by the 2nd opposite party. In Ext.A4, the condition of the set is noted as ‘liquid ingression’ and the complaint is noted as ‘No power’. From Ext.A4 it is also understood that the disputed defect is within warranty period. Admittedly the defect mobile is having serious defects and it is with the 2nd opposite party. According to the opposite parties, the defect is due to physical damage resultant water ingression, so a lot of parts is to be replaced. But nothing has been placed on record to prove their contentions. According to the complainant, at the time of purchase, 3rd opposite party assured that the said phone is having rating of IP 55 & 58 standard and it can be used in fresh water up to 1.5 meters deep for 30 minutes. And it is also mentioned the start up guide and in their advertisement. According to the opposite parties the problem in the phone was due to water ingression in the internal parts. So they could not repair on warranty. Ext.A3 is the startup guide issued by the 1st opposite party manufacturer. In Ext.A3 it is stated that the mobile is having IP (ingress protection) rating of IP 55 and IP 58. It is also stated that these rating means that your device is dust resistant and it protected against low pressure water stream as well as against the defects of submersion for 30 minutes in fresh water up to 1.5 meters deep. So in our view, without any evidence to prove physical damage, the contention taken by the opposite parties that they are not liable to repair or replace the defective mobile phone is not sustainable. Admittedly the phone was purchased on 13/09/2014 for Rs.34,500/- and the defect occurred on 16/05/2015 ie, within warranty period, and major parts of the phone is to be replaced. So opposite parties are liable to replace the defective phone or else refund the price of the phone. In our view a newly purchased mobile phone shows serious complaints within short period is due to manufacturing defect. And the act of opposite parties in not repairing the complainant’s mobile phone on free of cost or replace the mobile phone within warranty period, amounts to deficiency in service. Due to the said act of opposite parties, complainant had suffered much mental pain, loss and sufferings. So he is to be compensated. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1, complaint is allowed.
In the result,
- Opposite parties are Ordered to replace the mobile phone with a brand new one of same model having same features or refund Rs.34,500/-, the price of the mobile phone, to the complainant.
- Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.2,000/-, as compensation, to the complainant.
- Opposite parties are Ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry @ 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Bill dtd. 13/09/2014 issued by 3rd opposite party
Ext.A2 : Warranty card
Ext.A3 : Startup guide
Ext.A4 : Service job sheet
Ext.A5 : CD
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
