DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  20^th day of November  2015

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                              Date of filing: 24/11/2014

                                                      (C.C.No.182/2014)       

Rajan.K

S/o.M.Kumaran Nair,

Sarayu Nivas,

6/633, Karekkattuparambu,

Ambikapuram Post,

Palakkad – 678 011                      -        Complainant

(By Adv.K.K.Jaidip) 

Vs

1.Manager,

   M/s.Oxygen the Digital Shop,

   Oxygen Tower, Court Road,

   Palakkad – 678 001  

2.Manager,

   A.Tech Services,

   7/906(1), Sekharipuram Junction,

   Ayyapuram, Kalpathy Post,

   Palakkad – 678 003.

3. Regional Manager,

    M/s.Sony India Pvt.Ltd.

   (Regional Office)

   No.6, A Centennial Square,

   Opp.Brown Star Hotel,

   Dr.Ambedkar Road,

   Kodambakkam,

   Chennai – 600 024                                        -        Opposite parties

(By Adv.S.M.Unnikrishnan)

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

The complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Sony for Rs.8857/- on 3/4/2014 from 1^st opposite party. The complainant had also purchased a Samsung Bluetooth handset worth Rs.476/- to be used alongwith the mobile. 2^nd opposite party is the service centre of 3^rd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the mobile. The complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.9800/- including tax to 1^st opposite party.  The mobile has  a guarantee of 12 months. The complainant was using the mobile for his personal use with due care and caution. At the time of purchase 1^st opposite party assured that the mobile is reputed to be of high standard namely water resistant etc.

Within 3 months of purchase, the mobile  started showing complaints. The      earphone provided with the mobile handset did not work – nothing could be heard from it. The complainant approached 1^st opposite party and they informed the complainant that the earphone is working but the set is defective. As per the direction of 1^st opposite party on 11-7-2014 the complainant approached 2^nd opposite party for repair of the mobile and they cured the problem of the mobile.

         After using it for one month the mobile handset again became defective and it could not read the memory card. On 7/9/2014 the complainant again as per the direction of 1^st opposite party approached the 2^nd opposite party and handed over the set to cure the defect. After that the complainant had to go to the service centre more than 10 times but they did not cure the defect of the mobile.

Finally on 22/9/2014, the 2^nd opposite party has returned the handset saying that they cannot repair it and asked the complainant to approach one particular mobile repair shop outside. The complainant requested the 2^nd opposite party to replace the defective mobile with new one. But the 2^nd opposite party behaved harshly to the complainant and issued an estimate for Rs.4488/-.  On 8/10/2014 the complainant sent notice to opposite parties 1 to 3 and to the Head office of 3^rd opposite party at Delhi. Even though the opposite parties received the notice, there is no response from their side.

Believing the advertisements and brochures, the complainant had opted to purchase the mobile handset made by 3^rd opposite party. Complainant submits that there is deficiency of service mainly on the part of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Complainant submitted that as the damage to the complainant’s mobile has occurred within the guarantee period, the complainant is entitled to get a total replacement of the mobile handset and to get a new one for the same price. Complainant has suffered mental agony and has faced hazards by using the mobile. The complainant cannot use the memory slot of 32 GB for any purpose. 

Complainant further submitted that this is a clear case of manufacturing defect of the product of 3^rd opposite party and deficiency of service of the other opposite parties. It would come under purview of unfair trade practice as the product is of inferior quality and substandard.

Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset and accessories worth Rs.9800/- to the complainant with a brand new one, direct opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and suffering caused due to the acts of the opposite parties and to pay the cost of proceedings .

Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties. 1^st opposite party was absent. Hence set exparte. 2^nd and 3^rd  opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version contending the following.

2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties admitted the purchase of mobile. The liability of these opposite parties is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warrantee provided by them. The warranty  clearly provides that where the product has been damaged by the complainant due to accident or ingress of liquid or any other external cause which is beyond the control of the opposite parties the terms of the warranty has no application.

The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party  on 22/09/2014  after  using the handset  for more than 5 months without any problem alleging  problem of memory card not detecting with respect to the handset. When the handset was  inspected by the service engineers it was found to be damaged by cause of liquid ingression, which renders the warranty void. The service engineers agreed that they will repair the handset on a chargeable basis and accordingly provided an estimate of Rs.4489/- for the necessary repairs which the complainant did not approve and he insisted that it should be repaired free of cost. Sony India Pvt.Ltd. has written a communication   dated 29/12/2014 to the complainant. The opposite parties are liable to provide free of cost services during the warranty period only when  the defect has arisen due to improper  material and workmanship. This is a clear case of seeking to make wrongful gain by trying to arm twist the opposite party to provide refund of the purchase value alongwith compensation on a product.  Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A3 series are marked from the side of the complainant. MO.1 also marked.             Ext.B1,B2 & B4 are marked from the side of opposite parties. Ext.B3 is marked with objection. 

The following issues are considered

1.  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?

Issues 1&2

Heard. We have perused the documents filed by both parties. 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties admitted the purchase of mobile on 3-4-2014. The contention of opposite parties is that complainant had approached the 2^nd opposite party only on 22/09/2014 after using the mobile for more than 5 months without any problem. But on contrary to this contention, Ext A2 shows that the complainant had approached 2^nd opposite party for repair of mobile set on  two occasions i.e. on 11-7-2014 and            22-9-2014 i.e. just after three months of its purchase.  The problem was occurred within the period of warranty. It was also admitted by the opposite parties. The complainant submitted that he had to go to the service centre more than 10 times but there was no response from the 2^nd opposite party. At last complainant took his mobile back from the 2^nd opposite party.

The opposite parties also contended that their service engineer examined the mobile and opined that  the damage on mobile was caused due to ingress of liquid. In order to prove this contention, opposite parties did not take any steps to examine the service engineer. The opposite parties failed to prove that the damage to the mobile was caused due to the ingress of liquid. In the above circumstances the denial of free service to the complainant during the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Within three months, complaint occurred for newly purchased mobile. It is the duty of the opposite parties to rectify the defects at free of cost if the problems are occurred within the period of warranty. 

In the result complaint is partly allowed.

Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed

1. To repair the mobile set at free of cost
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony suffered and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.

If the opposite parties are not rectified the defects within one month from the date of receipt of this order,  complainant is entitled to get Rs.8,857/- (Rupees Eight thousand eight hundred and fifty seven only) being the cost of mobile  from the opposite parties in addition to the above cost and compensation. 

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th day of November  2015.

   Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                          Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant.

Ext.A1 –  Retail Invoice dated 3/4/2014 for Rs.9800/- issued by 1^st opposite

              party

Ext.A2  - Estimate for Rs.4488/ issued by 2^nd opposite party

Ext.A3 series -  Registered letter with postal receipt and acknowledgement

                       card  dated 8/10/14 issued to opposite parties by the complainant.

MO 1 – Mobile Phone Sony make

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.B1 – Copy of board resolution  dated 7/2/2014 of Sony India Pvt.Ltd.

Ext.B2 – Copy of letter  dated 27/12/2014  sent to Sony India Pvt.Ltd. by A

             Tech Services.

Ext.B3 – Copy of warranty terms  of Sony India Pvt.Ltd.

Ext.B4 –Copy of letter dated 29/12/2014 addressed to complainant by Sony

             India Pvt. Ltd.

Cost 

Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.