| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/125 of 15.6.2015 Decided on: 9.11.2015 Harbans Singh son of Karam Singh, resident of House No.246, New Yadvindra Colony, Sirhind Road, Patiala (98145-25033) …………...Complainant Versus 1. M/s Amar Enterprises, Tripuri Town, Opp. Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib Patiala, through its Proprietor Sh.Harshdeep. 2. M/s Sankalp Electronics, SCF 9, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Opp. Iqbal Inn, Patiala, through its Proprietor. …………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Santosh Kumar, Advocate For Op No.2: Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT - It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased a mobile hand set make Sony Xperia Z-MB C6602/Xperia Z-Black on 24.6.2014 from Op no.1 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. It was assured by Op no.1 that the mobile hand set was water resistent and in case the water enters into the mobile hand set, the company will replace the same with new one. The Op also provided a warranty for a period of one year in respect of any kind of defect.
- After some time, the rain water entered into the mobile phone and it started giving a problem in its camera and in other applications. The complainant approached Op no.2, the service centre of Sony Xperia Mobiles. Op no.2 assured the complainant that there being a minor defect, the same would be resolved by up-dating the software and accordingly the software was updated vide job sheet No.W115010304385 on 3.1.2015 but despite the software having been updated, the problem persisted in the camera and in the other applications and therefore, the complainant again approached Op no.2 who suggested to leave the mobile hand set with it for a period of five days as the same had to be sent to the head office for repair. The son of the complainant left the mobile phone with Op no.2 vide job sheet No.W115012101422 dated 21.1.2015.Op no.2 with a malafide intention failed to disclose the date and time of the delivery just to avoid legal consequences. Since then the mobile hand set is lying in the custody of Op no.2 and the same had not been repaired till the filing of the complaint although the complainant requested the Op either to repair the mobile hand set or to replace the same with new one but to no effect.
- The complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice dated 5.6.2015 having requested to replace the mobile hand set with new one or to refund the price thereof i.e. Rs.30,000/- and further to pay him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him. Although the notice was sent through registered post but the op failed either to replace the mobile hand set or to respond.
- After the complainant having served the Ops with the legal notice, he visited Op no.2 and made a request for the replacement of the mobile hand set or the repair thereof but the Op made a refusal and rather told that he will be charged Rs.6000/- for the sake of repair but when he disclosed that the mobile hand set was under warranty, Op misbehaved with the complainant. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to replace the mobile hand set or to refund the price thereof and that in case the mobile hand set is repaired to extend the warranty for a period of five months; to pay him Rs.50,000/-by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant and further to award him Rs.10,000/-towards the costs of the complaint.
- The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.2 only, who on appearance filed the written version. The Op has not denied the complainant having purchased the mobile hand set in question from Op no.1 on 24.6.2014 but it is denied, for want of knowledge that Op no.1 had assured the complainant that the mobile set was water resistent and that in case water enters into the mobile hand set, the Op will replace the same although mobile phone comes with specific terms and conditions. It is admitted that the company provides one year warranty for any kind of defect in the mobile hand set.
- It is denied for want of knowledge that after sometime the rain water entered into the mobile hand set and it started giving problem in the camera and other functions. It is admitted that the complainant approached the Op on the 3rd January,2015 but there was no defect in the mobile hand set. The Op updated the software of the mobile hand set to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is denied that after the software of the mobile hand set having been updated the problem in the camera and in the other applications still persisted.
- It is admitted by the Op that Jaspreet Singh son of the complainant had approached the Op and handed over the mobile hand set vide job sheet No.W115012101422 dated 21.1.2015 and it was specifically disclosed by the Op that the mobile hand set shall be treated out of warranty because the water indication in audio jack was read, which means that the water entered into the mobile phone due to the negligence on the part of the customer and only after being satisfied , the son of the complainant provided his signatures on the job sheet. It was disclosed to the son of the complainant that the mobile hand set will be sent to the High Value Centre(HVC) for repair. The son of the complainant left the mobile hand set against a job sheet but it is denied that the date of delivery was not mentioned on the job sheet with a malafide intention to avoid any legal consequences. Rather the son of the complainant or the complainant himself never turned up to give the consent for repair. The mobile hand set is lying in the possession of the OP and the same has not been repaired for want of the consent of repair by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant approached the Op and requested either to repair the mobile hand set being within warranty or to replace the same with new one .It is also denied that the Op refused to repair the mobile hand set or that the Op demanded a sum of Rs.6000/- for repairing the same. After controverting the other allegations of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and his counsel closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Manoj Kumar,Prop. of Op no.2 alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed its evidence.
- The parties failed to file the written arguments.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
- It is a fact admitted by Op no.2 that the mobile hand set of the complainant is lying deposited with it vide job No.W115012101422 dated 21st January,2015,Ex.C2 and it also could not be disputed by the Op that the problem in the mobile hand set was reported within the warranty period of one year in as much as the mobile hand set was purchased by the complainant vide retail invoice Ex.C1 dated 24.6.2014. The plea taken up by the Op is that, “The water indication in audio jack was red”, which means that the water entered in the mobile due to the negligence of the customer. However, nothing is explained by the Op as to how the consumer was negligent in that regard. Ex.C6 is the literature down loaded by the complainant from sonymobile.com in respect of the mobile hand set make XperiaTM Z and on leaf No.12 marked by the complainant in hand , it is provided: “In compliance with IP55 and IP57,Xperia Z is protected against the ingress of dust and is water resistant. Provided that all ports and covers are firmly closed, the phone is (i) protected against low pressure jets of water from all practicable directions in compliance with IP 55; and /or(ii) can be kept under 1 metre of freshwater for up to 30 minutes in compliance with IP 57. The phone is not designed to float or work submerged underwater outside the IP55 or IP57 classification range and should not be exposed to any liquid chemicals. If liquid detection is triggered on the handset or battery, your warranty will be void”.Similarly on leaf No.16,it is provided: “The Sony Xperia Z has an impressive IP55/IP57 rating, making this slim and sleek smartphone resistant to water and dust”. Further on leaf no.17, it is provided, “The water resistant(1) Xperia Z can easily be used in the pouring rain. We even made sure it can keep going after 30 minutes underwater up to 1 metre. Just remember that all the covers for the micro USB port, the micro SIM slot, the headphone jack and the memory card slot must be firmly closed against the ingress of dust and is water-resistant.Provided that all ports and covers are firmly closed, the phone is (i) protected against low pressure jets of water from all practicable directions in compliance with IP55; and /or (ii) can be kept under 1 metre of freshwater for upto 30 minutes in compliance with IP57”.
- A perusal of the aforesaid features of the mobile phone make Sony Xperia Z, it would appear that it is water resistant and it can keep going after 30 minutes under water upto 1 metre. It was for the Op to have lead the evidence that the complainant had not taken care of closing the covers for the micro USB port, the micro SIM slot, the headphone jack and the memory card slot , which fact had to be noticed by Op no.2 in the job No.W115012101422,Ex.C2 dated 21st 2015 but nothing of the sort is noted in the same, meaning thereby that there is no reason to disbelieve the plea taken up by the complainant that the water entered into the mobile hand set during the raining, which resulted into the non functioning of the camera and other applications of the mobile hand set. We also believe the complainant that the Op have demanded a sum of Rs.6000/- for repairing the mobile hand set when the complainant approached the Op after having served the Op with a legal notice dated 5.6.2015 and the same amounted to a deficiency in service on the part of the Op. We are of the considered view that the problem in the mobile hand set having occurred during the warranty period and there being no lapse on the part of the complainant for the water to have intruded into the mobile hand set, the Op is bound to rectify the defect. We accordingly accept the complaint and give a direction to Op no.2 to rectify the defect in the mobile hand set to the satisfaction of the complainant within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order and in case the same is not possible to replace the mobile hand set with a brand new one of the same make.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. On account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant, we give a direction to Op no.2 to provide the complainant with a compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- .The amount of the costs and compensation shall be paid by the Op within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced Dated: 9.11.2015 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member Member President | |
