Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/608/2017

Abhishek Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Goyal Adv.

16 Feb 2018

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	608 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	11.08.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	16.02.2018

 

 

 

 

Abhishek Bajaj s/o Sh.Om Parkash, R/o Flat No.B-52, Sector 127, Mittal Paradise Apartment, Shivalik City, Kharar, Distt. Mohali.      

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Sony Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., A-31, 2^nd Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

2]  S.K.Retail Ventures, B-36/157, Vikas Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

3]  Techno Care, SCO 128-129, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (Sony Authorised Service Centre).

4]  Rai & Sons, SCO 60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh (Sony Authorised Service Centre).

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Deepak Goyal, Adv. for the complainant.

 Sh.Vikrant Sharma, Adv. for OPs

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased mobile Phone Sony Xperia Z5 Premium Dual SIM 32 GB (Chrome), manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, on payment of Rs.44,990/- on 13.9.2016, which was delivered by Opposite Party No.2 (Ann.C-1). It is averred that the said mobile was carrying one year warranty and it is also having warranty for Dust & Water Proof (Ann.C-2 to C-4). It is averred that since the said mobile was giving problem, so it was replaced with other used mobile phone by the Opposite Parties and also provided Quality Test Report (Ann.C-5 & C-6).  However, the OPs did not provided the soak test of the mobile which was delivered to the complainant, so the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to either do the soak test or deliver new mobile to him.  It is also averred that the replaced mobile phone did not work even for few days and the same also started showing same problem and the complainant again approached OP No.4 for repair of same vide Job Card dated 20.4.2017 (Ann.C-7) and again the mobile was replaced with other used mobile phone. 

         It is submitted that on 14.5.2017, when the mobile of the complainant was lying on the table in his house with all caps closed, a glass of water spilled on the table and the water had also gone under the mobile of the complainant, the complainant immediately picked up his mobile phone and wiped the same with cotton towel, but to his utter surprise, the mobile phone of the complainant stopped working. It is also submitted that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 for repair, then Opposite Party NO.3 replied that there is water ingression in the device of the complainant due to which warranty is void.  However, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Opposite Party NO.3, who told to collect the same after two days and when the complainant visited it to collect the mobile, the Opposite Party NO.3 handed over the damaged mobile phone and replied that it will not be repaired (Ann.C-8).  It is further submitted that the OPs are making false excuses in order to avoid their liability of repair/replacement or refunding the amount of the phone in question to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.  

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that on inspection, it was found that the handset was in liquid damage condition and as such the warranty stands void. It is stated that the condition of the handset was very bad and liquid entered inside the handset through open ports and connectors and through the minor cracks developed in the handset due to rough usage of the same.  It is also stated that it was only due to the negligence on the part of the complainant in using the handset that resulted in liquid ingression and that the damage condition of the handset can be seen from the photographs (Ann.R-4).  It is submitted that the complainant refused to go for chargeable service.  It is also submitted that the connectors/ports of the subject mobile phone were not properly closed at the time of incident, which resulted into liquid damage. It is further submitted that the complainant did not abide the instructions outlined in the user guide due to which the handset got damaged. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions made in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question on 13.9.2016.  Though the mobile phone was within one year warranty, but the OPs did not stand to their commitment and refused to repair the fault in the mobile telephone on flimsy ground of liquid damage and negligence on the part of the complainant.  The complainant has purchased the mobile telephone in question at the cost of Rs.44,990/-, but could not utilize the same due to poor after sale service on the part of the OPs, which cannot be acquiesced.  Now since the warranty period is over, the OPs are bound to pay back the price of the mobile telephone in question to the complainant due to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on their part in failing to provide after sale service/repair as per terms & conditions of the sale of product in question.

 

7]       Keeping into consideration the interest of justice and the facts & circumstances of the case, the complaint is allowed with directions to OPs to jointly & severally pay an amount of Rs.44,990/ to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

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

Announced

16^th February, 2018                                                      

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER