Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/746

YOGESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI SACHINAND MOBILE STORE - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 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: 26.10.2015

Complaint Case. No.746/15                                                        Date of order:  22.02.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Mr. Yogesh, C4G/85B Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058                                           Complainant

  VERSUS

 

Mr. Sunny, Proprietor  M/S Jai Sachidanand Mobile Store, E-1/E-2, Sai Complex,Chanakya Place, Part-1, 40 Feet Road, Opp. C-1, Janak Puri, New Delhi-59                   Opposite party-1

 

Mr. Kenichiro Hibi,  Managing Director Sony India (Pvt) Ltd. Ind. Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-44                                                                                                               Opposite party-2

 

Mr. Ashu Goyal, Manager,  Service point, Office No. 308, 3^rd Floor DDA Building-5, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-58                                                                           Opposite party-3

 

 

    ORDER

SHRI R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

              Brief relevant facts for disposal of the present complaint are that one mobile handset of make ‘’Sony Xperia C4E5363’’ was purchased by the complainant for sale consideration of Rs.23,500/- on 31.08.2015 from the opposite party no.1 vide invoice no.RI/15-16/4357. The mobile handset had manufacturing defect. The sim slot of the handset was defective and unable to remove sim card from the handset.  The mobile handset developed some fault within warranty. The complainant deposited the handset for

                                                                               -2-

repair to the opposite Party no.3 on 14.10.2015 vide job sheet no.ACGFS6967ASD001. The opposite party no.3 told the complainant that the mobile handset will be repaired on paying repair charges as the mobile handset is out of warranty due to external damage. Physical damage of the mobile handset is due to negligence of the opposite party no.3 while inspecting the mobile handset. The opposite parties sold a defective mobile handset to the complainant. The opposite parties are negligent and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.23,500/- cost of mobile handset along with 18% interest  and Rs.12,000/- as  compensation for  mental pain, agony  and  harassment and Rs. 1500/- for litigation expenses.

              Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties filed reply to the complaint raising preliminary objection that the complaint is baseless and false and the handset is physically damaged due to mishandling of the complainant.  Therefore, the warranty has become void. On merits it is admitted that the mobile handset was deposited for repairs but asserted that there was physical damage of the mobile handset due to mishandling by the complainant. Therefore, the warranty become void as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The opposite parties are not liable to repair or replace the mobile handset without charges.  They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.        When the parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, the complainant filed his affidavit dated 25.07.2016 narrating facts of the complaint. He relied upon copy of invoice dated 31.08.2015, copy of job sheets dated 10.10.2015 and 14.10.2015, copy of

                                                                             -3-

estimate charges dated 14.10.2015 and email dated 13.10.2015. The opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Priyank Chauhan dated 31.03.2016 reiterating their stand taken in the reply. They relied upon copy of terms and conditions of warranty, copy of photographs of mobile handset and letter dated 15.12.2015. In the affidavit he deposed that the warranty of mobile handset had become void due to external damages for negligence of the complainant. Hence the mobile handset will be repaired after paying repair charges. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

              We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through material on record carefully and thoroughly.

              From the perusal of the documents relied upon by the parties it reveals that one mobile handset of make “Sony Xperia C$ E5363” was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party no.1 for sale consideration of Rs.23,500/- on 31.08.2015. The mobile handset developed some fault and was given for repair on 10.10.2015. The opposite parties gave estimate of Rs.9,676/- for repair of the mobile handset. The job sheet dated 14.10.2015 reveals that the warranty is void. The complainant refused to pay the repair charges.

              From the affidavits and documents placed on record, it reveals that the mobile handset was given for repairs to the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.3 refused to repair the mobile handset free of cost and gave estimate of Rs.9,676/-. The photographs of the mobile handset shows that the sim slot is damaged. There is no material on record to

                                                                              -4-

show that the Sim slot is damaged by the opposite party no.3. From reading terms and conditions of the warranty it is evident that in case of external damage the warranty becomes void. Therefore, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties are not liable for payment of any compensation.

              In light of above discussion and observations the complaint fails. Resultantly dismissed.

Order pronounced on : 22.02.2017

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

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                    (URMILA GUPTA)                                        (R.S.  BAGRI)                       MEMBER                                                        MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT