Haryana

Karnal

CC/213/2015

Sachin Ahuja S/o Ramesh Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

03 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.213 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.:10.09.2015

                                                               Date of decision 3.8.2016

 

Sachin Ahuja son of Shri Ramesh Ahuja age 38 years occupation business resident of 347, 13 extension, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Sony India Private Limited A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

2.F-1 Info Solution & Services Private Limited authorized service centre Sony Mobile House no.493-L, Model Town, near SBI Training Centre, Karnal-132001.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-    Complainant in person.

                  Shri P.S.Bhatti Advocate for opposite parties.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that on 24.07.2015 he got booked phone Sony Experia-Z Altra on the site of Philip Cart. The price of the said mobile was Rs.13990/- and the same carried warranty of one year. He paid the price of the mobile through credit card of ICICI Bank. After 3-4 days the said mobile bearing IMEI no.357656054158504 was delivered to him alongwith the bill by the dealer of the Philip cart. After one month screen of the mobile had broken without any cause. Neither the mobile had fallen down nor any pressure was put up on the same. On 31.08.2015, he approached the opposite party no.2, the authorized service centre of Sony Company. The Engineers checked the mobile, but they could not find out the reason of damage to the screen. However, the mobile was kept with the assurance that approval will be sought from the company and if approval would be received, the screen would be replaced. One job sheet no.W115083100710 was also given to him at that time. On 2.9.2015, he again approached opposite party no.2, but he was told that the company had not given approval for replacement of the screen. He was further told that he will have to pay Rs.5000/- to get repaired the mobile set and Rs.7000/- for replacement of the new set. As the screen of the mobile had broken without any cause, there must be manufacturing defect in the mobile. He approached opposite party no.1 through e-mail and complained against opposite party no.2. After few days opposite party no.1 refused to repair the mobile and asked him to get the same replaced against payment upto 14.09.2015. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, due to which he suffered mental harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant has no cause to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that opposite party no.1 provided limited and conditional warranty for one year on the hand set of the complainant. The defects could be removed as per terms and conditions of the warranty. Hand set of the complainant was inspected by the ASC of opposite party no.1, who found that the same was externally damaged, as a result of which the warranty was rendered void. Repairs could be done on chargeable basis only. The complainant has not submitted any expert report or opinion to establish that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

3.                The complainant in his evidence tendered, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Priyank Chauhan Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 have been tendered.

5.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased one Sony Experia Z Altra  mobile manufactured by the opposite party no.1 through website of Philip Cart for an amount of Rs.13990/-. As per allegations of the complainant after about one month he found that the screen of the mobile set had broken without any cause. Neither the same had fallen down nor any pressure was put on the screen. He approached the opposite parties, but they refused to replace the same. It has also been alleged that the screen might have broken due to manufacturing defect in the mobile set.

7.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that the complainant has not produced any expert opinion that breaking of the screen of the mobile set could be due to some manufacturing defect in the product. Such allegation had been supported by affidavit of the complainant, which is not sufficient to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile set. The fact remains that the screen of the mobile set of the complainant had broken. Exterior damage to the mobile set is not covered under the warranty condition. Therefore, it cannot be said in any manner that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, by not replacing the screen or complete the mobile set of the complainant. After the warranty becoming void due to exterior damage to the mobile set, the opposite parties could certainly ask for charges for repairs. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that the complainant has not been able to establish that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set or that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 03.08.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member