Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/178

Jai kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Connex & service point - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2017

ORDER

    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                        Date of institution: 03.03.2016

Complaint Case. No.178/16                                           Date of order:06.05.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Jai Kumar, H.No.35, Amrai Village, Dwarka, Sector-19, New Delhi-110075.

Complainant

VERSUS

1. Connexions, C-159, Shop No.1,Naraina Ind. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110028.                                                                                                   Opposite party no.1

2. Service Point, Sony Service Centre, 308, 3^rd Floor, DDA Building-5, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.                                                 Opposite party no.2

3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.                                                          Opposite party no.3

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Shri Jai Kumar complainant named above as filed the present complaint against Connexions and others here in the opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act briefly  stating that on 06.10.15 he purchased a mobile make and model “Sony Xperia M5 Dual/E5663” with IMEI No.352191070974382 from the opposite party no.1 manufactured by the opposite party no.3 for sum of Rs.34,500/-. On 25.01.16 the mobile hanged and Jack stopped working. On 08.02.16 he deposited the mobile with the opposite party no.2 for repairs. They promised to repair and return the mobile within 3-4 days. When the complainant visited the opposite party no.2  after 4-5 days they asked the complainant to come again after 4-5 days. When the complainant  visited the opposite party no.2 on 5^th day, they told the complainant that water ingressed the mobile and the mobile is beyond warranty. They asked the complainant to pay Rs.12,036/- for repairs. The complainant protested and told the opposite party no.2 that the mobile is in warranty and he is not ready to pay any amount. The opposite party no.2 refused to repair the mobile without payment of repair charges. The mobile is still lying with the opposite party no.2. They have failed to repair and return the mobile. Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to pay cost of the mobile and compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental, physical and financial suffering as well as litigation expenses.

Notices of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed joint reply while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections that the complainant on 06.10.15 purchased “Sony Xperia M5 Dual/E5663” with IMEI No.352191070974382 for sum of Rs.34,500/- from the opposite party n.1 after detailed demonstrations of features, functions, application and warranty terms and conditions. The opposite party no.3 provides a limited warranty of one year subject to terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant  mis-handled and mis-used the mobile. He did not use the mobile as explained. Therefore water ingressed in the mobile and warranty has become void. Therefore, the opposite parties are not liable to repair the mobile and pay any compensation.

However on merits, the opposite parties admitted that the mobile was delivered to the opposite party no.2  for repairs. But after inspection of the mobile it was observed that there was liquid ingression. The liquid entered the mobile damaging the set. Therefore, the limited warranty become void and estimated cost of repair was shared with the complainant. All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties converting stand of the opposite parties and reiterating his stand.

When Shri Jai Kumar complainant was asked to file evidence by way of affidavit, he tendered his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. He also relied upon invoice no.0725 dated 06.10.15, job sheet dated 08.02.16 and water proof warranty of the handset.

When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit. They filed affidavit of Ms. Priyanka Chauhan has narrating facts of the reply. The opposite parties in support of their case have also relied upon invoice no.725 dated 06.10.15, important information about the make and model of the mobile with terms and conditions of warranty, job sheet dated 08.02.16, test report of the mobile with photographs of liquid logged in the mobile set. 

The opposite parties also filed written arguments in support of their version.

We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the record carefully and thoroughly.

After having heard both the sides at length and going through the pleadings of the parties, affidavits and doucments relied upon by the parties it is common case of the parties that the complainant on 06.10.15 purchased “Sony Xperia M5 Dual/E5663” with IMEI No.352191070974382 for sum of Rs.34,500/- from the opposite party no.1 manufactured by the opposite party no.3. On 08.02.16 the mobile was deposited with the opposite party no.2 for repair.

The case of the complainant is that the opposite party neither repaired nor returned the mobile despite the fact the mobile was within warranty. Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that due to mis-handling and mis-use of the mobile liquid ingress the mobile. Therefore the warranty became void. In support of their case they relied upon important information of use and operation of the mobile as well as warranty and test report of water proof of the mobile set. From the water proof test report with photographs of liquid logged in the mobile the opposite party succeeded to prove that the mobile was water proof even then water logged in the mobile. The test report with photographs are supported by affidavit of Ms. Priyanaka Chauhan. Whereas there is no conclusive evidence on behalf of the complainant that liquid did not ingress and logged in the mobile due to mis-use and mis-handling of the mobile by the complainant. It is worthwhile to reproduce relevant condition of the warranty which reads as under:-

“Your device is waterproof and protected against dust, so don’t worry if you get caught in the rain or want to wash off dirt under  a tap, but remember: all ports and attached covers should be firmly closed. You should not: put the device completely underwater; or expose it to seawater, salt water, chlorinated water or liquids such as drinks. Abuse and  improper use of device will invalidate warranty. The device has Ingress Protection rating IP65/68. For more info see water and dust protection. Your device has a capless USB port. The USB port must be completely dry before the cable can be connected for charging or data transfer, for example. If  your device gets exposed to water and the USB port gets wet,  wipe the device dry with a microfiber cloth and shake it several times with the USB port facing downwards. Repeat the procedure until no moisture is visible in the USB port.

Your warranty does not cover damage or defects caused by abuse or use of your device against Sony Mobiles instructions.  For more information about the warranty, refer to the important information, which can be accessed via support.sonymobile.com or the setup guide in your device.”

From the bare reading of the above warranty clause and test report supported by liquid logged photo and affidavit of Ms. Priyank Chauhan it is proved that liquid ingressed in the mobile due to mis-use and mis-handling by the complainant. The complainant failed to prove that liquid did not ingress the mobile due to mis-handling  and mis-use of the mobile. Therefore, the warranty has become void. The opposite parties are not liable to repair the mobile without payment of repair charges. Therefore, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite Paiutes.

Hence, there is no merit in the complaint. The complaint fails and is hereby dismissed. File be consigned. 

Order pronounced on : 06.05.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          ( R.S.  BAGRI )

             MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT