Haryana

Panchkula

CC/174/2016

virender singh. - Complainant(s)

Versus

sony india pvt .ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                  

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	174 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	12.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	11.11.2016

                                                                                          

Virender Singth son of Shri Karam Singh resident of House No. 934, Sec-21, Panchkula, Haryana. 

 

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Sony India Private Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura road New Delhi (110044).  

2.       Ultimate Services, Showroom No-55, Sector-5, Swastik Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex Panchkula (134109), Haryana.

                                                                                    …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

                             Mr.Deepak Sharma, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The complainant purchased a Sony Xperia (Z3 Compact D 5833) handset, for a consideration of Rs.24,840/-. The purchase was made vide order Id-OD30418304542208100 dated 16.10.2015, vice in voice Annexure C-1. The devise started malfunctioning and the complainant approached OP No.2 (authorized Service Center of Respondent No.1 which is the manufacturer of the handset) on 20.04.2016. After inspecting the handset, OP No.2 declined any assistance on an averment that the presence of liquid mark inside handset was not covered under warranty. While charging the complainant for opening the handset, OP No.2 asked for a sum of Rs.14,369/- for repair of the handset. Copies of the job sheet were annexed with the complaint as Annexure C2 and C3. On being approach by the complainant on 03.06.2016, OP No.1 offered to repair the handset for a sum of Rs.9,567/- or exchange it for Rs.14,495/-.

The handset being a water proof device, the complainant      declined to make any payment. It is on these averments that the complainant has filed this complaint.

2. In a joint written statement, the OPs reiterated the validity of refusal on their part to replace the handset free of charge on a pure and simple averment that the malfunctioning had occurred due to the water seepage into the handset which was solely attributable to the inept handling of the handset by the complainant. The further averment was that the defect aforementioned is not covered by the warranty.
3. We have heard the complainant in person and the Learned Counsel for the OPs and have perused the record including the affidavit-based evidence and the documentation placed on record by the parties in respect of their rival contentions averred before this Forum.
4. We find ourselves in agreement with the view advocated by the complainant. We record the following reasoning in support thereof.    
5. It being common ground that the malfunctioning occurred due to the availability of water content in the handset, the cue to the controversy is available in the documentation Annexure C5. It pertains to announce that the handset was water proof and dust tight (“The Sony Xperia Z3 Compact has an impressive IP65/68 rating, which means that neither water nor dust get in the way of performance for this slim and sleek smart phone”). The two other announcements recorded in Annexure C5 itself, and relatable to the quality of the impugned product, too are extracted hereunder: -

              “IP (Ingress Protection) rating

1.        IP 65/58 – what does it mean? IP rating is a test certification to measure a device’s resistance levels to both dust and water. The first digit in the two-digit. IP rating indicates the level of protection against solid objects, including tiny dust particles. The second digit indicates how resistant the device is to water.”

“Snap away with a waterproof Smartphone

With the waterproof Xperia Z3 Compact, you can take pictures with the best smartphone camera while swimming in fresh water for up to 30 minutes. You can even dive down to 1.5 metres with it. Just remember that all the covers for the micro USB port, the nano SIM slot and the memory card slot must be firmly closed.”

6. In view, thus, of the manufacturer’s announcements regarding the water resistant and dust proof quality of the handset (vide Annexure C5), it is not open to the OPs to plead for validation of their stance.
7. A customer would obviously go by the manufacturer’s announcements with regard to the qualities of a product which is put into the market for public sale. A customer would not have any means or competence to find out the correctness or otherwise of the announcements indicated in the course of Para No.5 and 6 of this order. The manufacturer’s or their authorized agents cannot be allowed to raise a plea which militates against the announcements aforementioned. Allowing the manufacturer’s and their authorized agents to resist claims for deficiency in service and manufacturing defect in a product would be legally inappropriate. 
8. The present is, thus, a case wherein the handset purchased by the complainant had a manufacturing defect inasmuchas it did not turn out to be water proof. Further, the OPs unjustly denied the claim made by the complainant, thereby impelling him to adventure a litigative course by filing this complaint.
9. While, thus, allowing the complaint in favour of the complainant and against the OPs, we would order that: -
1.  
2.  

(The relief has been restricted to the demand made by the complainant)

10. The liability of the OPs to pay the amount of compensation shall be joint and several.
11. The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

11.11.2016               ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                                 MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                          MEMBER