DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.39 of 2016
Date of institution: 14.02.2016 Date of decision : 19.04.2017
Sorabh Goyal son of Lokesh Kumar resident of Station Mandi, Ward No.15, Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, District, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Makkar Telecom Opp. Nagar Khara Dharamshala Kurali (Mohali) through its Prop.
2. Sony Mobile Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd., A-31, 2nd Floor, Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, India through its Manager.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Aksh Chetal, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Vikrant Sharma, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Sorabh Goyal has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant had purchased Sony Xperia mobile handset from OP No.1 on 13.02.2015. The mobile hand sent had one year warranty and it was assured by OP No.1 that if any defect found in the same, then it shall be replaced with other set of the same price. The complainant brought the handset to OP No.1 in July, 2015 as it became out of order. After checking, OP No.1 asked the complainant to submit the mobile handset with it and assured the complainant that the problem will be removed. Thereafter the complainant had been visiting OP No.1 to get his handset back after repairs but OP No.1 did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Ultimately in the month of October, OP No.1 refused to repair the handset and returned the mobile to the complainant without any repairs. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs on 19.12.2015 which was not replied to by the OPs. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace or refund Rs.16,500/- of the mobile phone with interest @ 18% from the date of purchase; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.11,000/-.
3. The complaint has been contested by the OPs by filing reply in which they have pleaded that the complainant had purchased one Sony Xperia C/C2305 mobile phone on 13.02.2015 from OP No.1. OP No.2 provided a limited warranty of one year from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with terms and conditions of the warranty. After enjoying the handset for more than 8 months, the complainant approached the OPs on 23.10.2015with the complaint of ‘Phone hanging permanently’. The OPs without any delay attended the complaint and inspected the handset. On inspection it was found that the handset was brought in a liquid ingress state and requires necessary repair action. The complainant was informed that the warranty terms are void in these circumstances. The mobile phone being liquid ingress was very well acknowledged by the complainant by signing the job sheet/cash memo. The mobile phone was damaged due to external factor. There was no inherent defect in the mobile handset. The complainant had been using the mobile handset for the first 8 months without any trouble. The complainant for the first time approached the OP on 23.10.2015 after satisfactorily enjoying the handset for more than 8 months. The mobile handset was damaged due to negligence of the complainant. OP No.2 specifically communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 02.02.2016 that as per warranty policy the handset is not covered under warranty terms. The complainant was also informed that the repair would be on chargeable basis. Despite reminder the complainant never responded back. On merits, the OPs have denied the averments of the complaint and have sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of bill dated 13.02.2015 Ex.C-1; legal notice dated 18.12.2015 Ex.C-2 and postal receipts Ex.C-3 and C-4. In rebuttal, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms. Meena Bose, their authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1; copies of authority letter Ex.OP-1; resolution Ex.OP-2; warranty terms Ex.OP-3; photograph Ex.OP-4; job sheet Ex.OP-4/A and letter dated 02.02.2016 Ex.OP-5.
5. The learned counsel for complainant has argued that after five months of its purchase, the mobile hand set went out of order after five months of its purchase. Learned counsel has argued that OP No.1 kept the handset with it from July, 2015 and returned the same to the complainant in October, 2015 without repairs. It has been further argued that the mobile handset was under warranty of one year and non repair of the handset within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs has argued that at the time of purchase of the mobile handset, the detailed terms and conditions were duly explained to the complainant. The complainant after using the mobile handset for 8 months brought the same to the OPs for repairs and on inspection it was found that the handset was liquid ingress which was not covered under warranty terms. The mobile handset was damaged due to own negligence of the complainant and thus his complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral arguments of the parties. The detailed terms and conditions of warranty are Ex.OP-3. Condition No.3 of warranty terms Ex.OP-3 is as under:
“This warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal and customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the Product nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid.”
The OPs have proved photograph Ex.OP-4 which shows waterlog in the handset. Even the retail invoice/cash memo/bill Ex.OP-4/A shows condition of set as ‘liquid ingress’. The OPs have also sent letter dated 02.02.2016 Ex.OP-5 to the complainant intimating that since the defect in the set is due to external factor and not inherent to the set under such circumstances the warranty stands void as per warranty policy. The complainant has not lead any contrary evidence to show that the there was inherent defect in the handset. Thus, the complainant has been failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
8. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 05.04.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 19.04.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
