THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 259/2013

Dated this the 6^th  day of October 2016

                        (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                       :  President)

                          Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                            : Member

                          Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB                 : Member

​

ORDER

Present: Beena Joseph, Member:

            This petition was filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.  The petition was filed on 20.06.2013. Complainant alleging that the mobile which purchased from the OP in the year 2012 for Rs.16500/- became defective within two days of purchase.  The phone was rectified by the opposite party No.3, even then also it became not working, which entrusted with OP3 they informed that the speaker got damaged that was repaired by OP3 by taking 3 weeks time.  Thereafter also the phone was not working he could not attend calls and touch screen became freezed.  This time it was entrusted to the service centre they informed that the mother board has to be replaced so the phone became defective and he could not use it, which caused much inconvenience to the petitioner and he claims compensation of Rs.51500/- towards that head.

            In this matter notice were issued to both parties all of them appeared and filed version.  All opposite parties filed version contenting the same.  In their version they states that Sony mobile communication India Pvt. Ltd amalgamated  with Sony India Pvt Ltd and they disputes the claim of the petitioner as vexatious baseless and abuse of process of Law.  Hence it is liable to be dismissed. Sony is a well known brand name in Mobile Industry in India who having authorized service centers and dealer across the country.  OP admits that petitioner purchased a Sony Xpera mobile phone having IEMI number 3543860554264564 on 05.12.12.  Further they states that their liability lies strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by them.  The warranty period of the product is valid for one year from the date of purchase. As per the warranty terms opposite parties are liable to provide free cost of repair on its products in cases when product is proved to be defective due to improper  material, workmanship, manufacturing defect or any other problem that has been arisen in the product from the manufacturing side.  There was no report regarding the complaint of the mobile phone as stated as under section 2(1) of the Act. 

            The opposite party had given various services to the consumer then the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  The complaint of the petitioner was properly attended by the OP and there was no evidence before this forum to show that there was loss due to inconvenience.  OP attempted to take care of complaints of the petitioner subject to the terms of the warranty and there is no service deficiency on the part of the OP.  The above complaint is filed without any bonafideness to gain unlawful advantage.  In this matter the petitioner claiming replacement without obtaining option for repairing the product under warranty terms.  This shows that there was no cause of action to file this complaint and the petition is liable to the dismissed with cost.

Points to be considered.

1. Is there any service deficiency or illegal trade practice adopted by OP?
2. If yes what are the reliefs to be granted.

     In this matter complaint examined as PW1 Ext.A1 and MO1 marked on his side.  Ext. A1 is the bill dated 05.12.12.  MO1 is the mobile phone.  Opposite party examined as RW1 Ext.B1 to B3 marked.  Ext.B1 is the amalgamation order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Ext.B2 is resolution, Ext.B3 Sony Brochure.

            The above matter purchase of mobile from Sony was not disputed by the opposite parties and there was no dispute regarding the maintainability of this petition.  Admittedly the above mobile was purchased on 05.12.12 for Rs.16500/- by the petitioner.  And the above mobile is having warranty of 1 year from the date of purchase.  The complainant states that the mobile which purchased by him became complaint within two days of purchase.  The touch screen was not working and the mobile became hanged so the mobile entrusted the OP for repair in twice even then it was not rectified by the opposite party.  Later the matter posted for settlement and mobile handed over to the opposite party for repair as per the direction of the Forum even then OP could not rectify the defects.  The OP content that if the product fails to operated under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship the Sony authorized distributor or service partner will at their option either repair or replace the product.  In this case it is brought out in evidence that the above said mobile defective due to the non functioning of Mother Board as per the allegation of the petitioner, which shows that materials of the mobile phone were defective, this was checked by the Forum while MO1 produced before us.  This was caused during the period of warranty.  Hence the opposite party cannot get rid of the liability.  And the complaint also filed within the warranty period.  So it can be considered as a manufacturing defect.  Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the petitioner.  The petitioner has not adduced any evidence regarding the loss sustained to him, hence we are not inclined to grand any compensation to the petitioner.  In the result petition is allowed in part.

            Therefore we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.16500/- (Rupees sixteen thousand five hundred only)as the cost of mobile phone and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.  Complainant is directed to return the mobile on reception of the amount from the opposite party. Comply the order with, within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

Dated this the 6^th day of October 2016.

Date of filing 20.06.2013.

SD/-MEMBER                                      SD/-PRESIDENT                                   SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Cash bill for Rs.16500/- issued by the opposite party dtd.05.12.2012.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1. The amalgamation order of Hon.High Court of Delhi dtd.23^rd July 2013.

B2. Certified true copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of sony India Pvt ltd

       in their meeting held on July 4, 2011.

B3. Brochure of Sony.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PWI. Shabin.P.S(Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

RW1Sudheesh.K.G, 5E,Central Avenue, Nadakkavu, Calicut

                                                                                                                                        Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT