BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 28th day of April 2018
Filed on : 18-11-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.649/2016
Between
Anil Kumar K.K., : Complainant
S/o. P. Krishnan Nair, (By Adv. Sebastine V.A.,
Flat # 17, Marvel Mansion M/s. Brahmanandan & Associates,
Apartment, Kathrikadavu, Flower Junction, T.D. Road,
Kaloor, Ernakulam-682 017. Ernakulam, Cochin-682 035)
And
1. Sony Mobile Communications : Opposite parties
(India) Pvt. Ltd., 2nd floor, A-31, (Absent)
Mohan Co-operative Industrial
Estate, Mathura road,
New Delhi-110 044,
rep. by its Manager.
2. S.S. Techo Mall, NH Bypass,
Near Oberon Mall,
Opp. Samsung Plaza Kochi,
Ernakulam, Rep. by its Manager.
3. Madonna Care Centre,
Allen's Cube, Paradised road,
Janatha Jn., Vyttila,
Cochin-682 019,
rep. by its Manager.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
The complainant purchased a Sony Mobile Phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 13-11-2015 on payment of its price Rs. 24,000/- with one year warranty. After two days of the purchase the phone started some defects such as hanging. Thereafter when the mobile phone was given back to the dealer it was replaced with a new one which also had similar defects. In the substitute phone, microphone volumn was defective in addition to the hanging issues unresponsive display, over heating etc. The phone was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party for repairs under warranty. They took the handset to the complainant and the 2nd opposite party issued a receipt and the copy of the job sheet. However, on 18-07-2016 the customer executive called the complainant and informed that the phone could not be repaired under warranty and as thereby committed deficiency in service. The phone purchased by the complainant had inherent manufacturing defect and hand set, defects continued despite issuance of registered notice on 1st opposite party on 08-09-2016. There was no positive response from the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant seeking a direction to the opposite parties for taking back the faulty mobile phone and to deliver the brand new mobile phone with extended warranty, compensation and costs.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 2 and 3 were served and they did not appear. On consequently on this they were set ex-parte. Consequently, the1st opposite party was also served with notice and they too remained ex-parte.
3. When the matter came up for complainant's evidence, the complainant filed a proof affidavit and Exbts. A1 to A9 documents were marked.
4. As per Exbt. A1 invoice dated 13-11-2015 the complainant Shri. Anil Kumar K.K. had purchased a Sony Z 3 compact ( black) mobile phone from the 2nd opposite party having serial No. xxxxx80010. According to the affidavit filed by the complainant the said mobile phone was replaced by another mobile phone by the opposite parties as it has certain manufacturing defects. The original mobile phone purchased by the complainant was having a warranty and Exbt. A2 is the warranty certificate issued on 13-11-2015 when he purchased the original mobile with serial No. xxx80010.n Exbt. A3 us the job sheet issued by the 3rd opposite party on 18-11-2015 whereby they are accepted the Original Phone purchased by the complainant having IMVI No. xxxx80010. The complaint was that the mobile phone was not getting the power on. The phone was replaced by another phone having No. xxx599827 as seen from Exbt. A3 on 18-11-2015. On 11-07-2016 the replaced mobile phone having No. IME No. xxx599827 was given for repairs on the complaint that the touch screen was not working and the set was over heating and hanging. It is pertinent to note that in Exbt. A4 estimate prepared by the 3rd opposite party it is specifically stated that the set was water logged Exbt. A5 prepared on 11-07-2016 is the service job sheet in which also the factual condition of the entrustment of a water logged mobile phone for repairs is shown. It is true that the complainant had paid Rs. 115/- towards advance payment for repairing the phone. On 13-10-2016 the complainant caused to issue Exbt. A7 legal notice alleging that the phone had manufacturing defect. Exbt. A8 is the postal receipt received by the complainant while issuing lawyer notice and Exbt. A9 is the postal AD evidencing the receipt of Advocate notice by the 3rd opposite party.
5. On going through the documents produced by the complainant it is seen that the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party had replaced the original mobile phone purchased by the complainant within 2 days after the purchase of the original phone. The complainant used the phone till 11-07-2016 and that day he had entrusted the phone to the 2nd opposite party for repairs under warranty. It is seen from Exbt. A5 that the phone was water logged at the time of entrustment for repairs. Exbt. A2 is the warranty card issued in response of the original phone. The complainant did not produce the warranty card issued in respect of the swapped phone. Even if assuming for argument sake, that the 2nd substitute phone had the warranty continued, had the phone was entrusted for repairs in a water log condition, the complainant cannot claim any warranty, as it is violation of condition shown in Exbt. A2 which pertains to the original phone. The prayer of the complainant is to get the swapped phone also replaced on the ground that there was manufacturing defect. The complainant had used the phone for almost 10 months and he never had any complaint of any manufacturing defect in such a period. The complaints of manufacturing defect was aired by the complainant for the swapped phone for the 1st time only when the 2nd opposite party refused to entertain the claim of the complainant that the phone is to be repaired under warranty is noted above. The phone at the time of entrustment for repairs was water logged and the complaint was not about water logged condition. The receipt of Rs. 150/- produced by the complainant amply proved the circumstance wherein the complainant had factually agreed to get the phone repaired on payment basis. If the complainant had a case that the phone ought to have been repaired under warranty, no prudent person would have paid any advance amount towards the repair charges. Therefore, by the payment of Rs. 150/- by the complainant on 11-07-2016 is presumed that he was convinced that he was not entitled to get the phone repaired under warranty.
6. After having understood that he was not legally entitled to get the phone repaired under warranty, he had taken an alternative claim that the phone had manufacturing defect and had filed this complaint as a test case. We find no bonafieds in this complaint and the complaint is found liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of April 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Senior Superintendent. Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of e-mail dt. 13-11-2015
A2 : Warranty certificate
A3 : Copy of delivery job sheet
dt. 18-11-2015
A4 : Copy of estimate
A5 : Copy of service job sheet
dt. 11-07-2015
A6 : Copy of advance receipt
dt. 11-07-2016
A7 : Unsigned lawyer notice
dt. 13-10-2016
A8 : Postal receipts
A9 : A.D. card
Opposite party's exhibits: : NiIl
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
