BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWNI.
Complaint No.219 of 2014.
Date of Instt: 7.8.2014.
Date of Order: 17.4.2015.
Ajay Kumar son of Shri Des Raj, resident of House No.1976, Sector-13, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
Versus ….…. Complainant
- Jeenu Gift Shop, 52, Adarsh College Market, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.
- Sony Service Centre (Authorized by manufacturing company) Near Biju Tower, Bhiwani.
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate. Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110 044.
…….Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri B.D.Yadav, President.
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Shri R.K.Verma, Adv. for complainant.
Shri Balbir Mehta, Adv. for respondents.
ORDER
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased one Handset of Sony Company Model Xperia T-2 from respondent No.1 manufactured by respondent No.3 vide bill No.40424 dated 22.5.2014. It is alleged that soon after purchase the Hand Set became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with respondent No.1 where upon respondent No.1 asked the complainant to go to service centre of the company. The complainant visited the office of respondent No. 2 i.e. authorized service centre of the company and requested him to repair the same but instead of removing the defects he threw the Hand Set due to which display and touch screen broke down in the service centre. The complainant further alleged that he made several complaints to the area manager of the company on toll free number of the company who advised to deposit the handset in the service center and assured that the company either delivers the new Hand Set or to refund the cost. The complainant further alleged that as per assurance of the area manager he visited the service centre of the company and requested to deposit the hand set but he flatly refused to do so. The respondents did not repair the Hand Set, hence the complainant is deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the refund of the amount along with compensation and costs.
2. Notice was issued to the respondents who put in appearance and filed written statement alleging therein that the averment, statement, allegations and contention made by the complainant is contrary and inconsistent which are hereby denied by the answering respondents. It is submitted that on 14.7.2014 the complainant approached the authorized service centre of the company with the allegations of problems of “display contract problem/touch screen does not work” with respect to handset and on inspection by the service engineer the handset was found to be damaged externally as the screen of the handset was broken. It is also submitted that the liability of the answering respondent lies strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty period by it on its products and the answering respondent cannot be held liable for claims falling outside the scope of warranty. It is submitted that the answering respondent has at all times honored the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and provided full support to the complainant with respect to the hand set on every occasion to the full satisfaction of complainant. It is further submitted that the service engineers of the company informed the complainant that the repair of handset would be carried out on a chargeable basis and estimate would be provided to carry out the necessary repairs, but the complainant blatantly refused to bear the cost of repair and kept insisting that the handset be repaired free of costs. It is also submitted that the service engineer of the company explain the complainant that the warranty on handset had been rendered void by cause of external physical damage due to which warranty services could not be provided. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed by way of filing the present complaint and as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties have filed their duly sworn affidavits in their evidence to prove their respective version.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both parties at length.
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents argued that liability of the respondents lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty period and as such the respondents are not liable for claims falling outside the scope of warranty. In support of his version he has placed his reliance Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. AIR 1996 (SC) 2508 vide which it has been held that the terms of warranty were binding on the parties and the liability undertaken in contract between the parties should be limited to the extent of undertaking. In our view, this plea of Ld. Counsel for the respondents has no substance because the complainant had purchased the Hand Set on 22.5.2014 and the respondents in Para No.5 of the written statement has admitted that the complainant approached the authorized centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. on 14.7.2014 i.e. within a period of one and half months, so the plea taken by the respondents is without basis. Moreover, the authority cited by the Ld. Counsel is not applicable to the case in hand because no such contract had taken place between the parties in the present case and as such the same is distinguishable.
6. It is further argued that the respondents were ready to repair the hand set on a chargeable basis and estimate but the complainant flatly refused to bear the cost of repair. In our view, this plea of the respondents is also without basis because the respondents have miserably failed to produce the estimate and costs of the parts to prove their version and they have miserably failed to do so with the reason best known to them.
7. Ld. Counsel for the respondents further argued that on inspection of hand set the service engineer company found that the Hand Set was damaged externally and the screen was broken. This plea of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has no substance because the respondents have failed to produce the affidavit of the Service Engineer of the company to prove their version but they did not do so with the reason best known to them. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has also placed his reliance on Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs Vir Partap (1997) II CPJ 81(NC) vide which it has been held that where the complaints of the complainant were duly and promptly attended by the Ops and no reliable evidence was produced by the complainant in support of his case. In our view, this authority cited by the Ld. Counsel is not applicable to the case in hand because the respondents have miserably failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence that the complainant was properly attended by the Service Engineer of the Company.
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that Hand Set was purchased from respondent No.1 vide Annexure C1 photo stat copy of bill No.40424 dated 22.5.2014. A perusal of Annexure C2 photo stat copy of regretful undertaking given by the ASC Unicom System, Shop No.6 City Mall, Bhiwani (service centre of the company) reveals that his attitude company with the customer is not good. Moreover, a perusal of complaint as well as Job Sheet reveals that the Hand Set was taken to respondents but the same has not been made in to working order. The version of the complainant is supported by an affidavit. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had purchased the hand set on 22.5.2014 and had taken to the service centre of the company on 14.7.2014 i.e. within a period of one and half months which also proves that the hand set provided by the respondents was not working properly. The surrounding circumstances also suggest that the Hand Set suffers from manufacturing defect for which respondents are liable. The complainant argued that the hand set is having manufacturing defect, therefore the respondents be directed to refund the price along with interest. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is accepted with costs and respondents are directed:-
1. To refund the original price along with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its final realization.
2. To pay Rs. 2200/- as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 17.4.2015.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Balraj Singh) (Anita Sheoran)
Member. Member.
