Orissa

Cuttak

CC/26/2017

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Infocity Lifestyle Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

28 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.26/2017

Sunil Kumar,

Res. of Nilamani Enclave,Professorpara,

P.O:College Square,P.S:Mangalabag,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                     … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.        M/s. INFOCITY LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD.,

Shop No.14, Ground Galleria,

2^nd Floor,BMC Bhabani Mall,

Bhuaneswar,Odisha.

 

2.        M/s. SHREEJAL SERVICES,

Authorized Service Centre of Sony,

At:Plot No.203/2901,Sriram Nagar,

Near FM Complex,Badambadi,

Town/Dist:Cuttack..

 

3.        Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

A-31,Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,New Delhi-110044(India).                    … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   01.03.2017

Date of Order: 28.07.2017.

 

For the complainant:      Sri B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.1,2 & 3 :      Sri R.Sarangi,Advocate & Associates.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Member.

                The case is against deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

1. The case in nutshell is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone on 15.02.2016 from O.P No.1 for Rs.27,990/-.  The model of the phone was Sony Xperia C.5 Black 35219207708(Annexure-1).  The warranty of the phone was for one year from the date of purchase(Annexure-2).  On 05.03.2016 some defects of the phone was pointed out and was given to the authorized service centre (O.P No.2) for repair. (Annexure-3).  Again the mobile set was given to O.P No.2 on 04.01.2017 but the O.P No.2 demanded Rs.9,700/- towards repair and intimated that the warranty period was over.  Rs.115/- was paid towards checking charges (Annexure-4).  Complainant issued a legal notice on O.P No.1 to replace the said phone (Annexure-5) but in vain.  The O.Ps have cheated the complainant by handing over a defective and old phone at the time of purchase.  Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of th9is Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.ps to pay a sum of Rs.27,990/- towards cost of mobile phone and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.45,000/- towards loss of business and Rs.7000/- towards legal expenses.  Thus he has claimed a total sum of Rs.99,990/-.
2. O.Ps (1,2 & 3) vide their written version dt.07.06.2017 has stated that the complainant had purchased a Sony Xperia C-5 Ultra Black mobile on 15.02.2016 from O.P No.1.  The said phone was under warranty for one year.  On 05.03.2016 the said phone was having some problem which was repaired by O.P No.2 free of cost.   The phone was again given at O.P No.2 for some problem relating to” ear speaker” on 04.01.2017 but no bill/invoice was produced by the complainant before O.P No.2 for which O.P No.2 did not know whether the phone was within the warranty or not.,  The clause-1 of the warranty terms clearly says that “this limited warranty is valid only if the original proof of purchase of this product issued by a Sony authorized dealer specifying the date of purchase and serial number**, is presented with the product to be repaired or replaced.  Sony reserves the right to refuse warranty service if this information has been removed or changed after the original purchase of the product from the dealer.”  The complainant had not produced the original bill/invoice for which the call center had no other option but to say no to the complainant.  No material evidence has been placed on record by the complainant which proves that the said hand set was having some inherent defect.  No document is also produced by the complainant to prove that the said hand set was having manufacturing defect.  Thus it seems that the complainant has made false allegations to just gain wrongfully.
3. We have gone through the case in details, perused the documents minutely as submitted by the complainant and as well as by the O.ps, heard the learned advocates from both the sides at length and observed that the complainant had purchased a Sony Xperia mobile hand set from O.P No.1.  on 15.2.2016  for a price of Rs.27,990/-.  The said mobile phone was having some defect which was repaired free of cost on 05.03.2017by O.P No.2.  On 04.01.2017 the mobile phone again developed certain problem and was produced before O.P No.2 for repair but O.P No.2 refused to repair the said phone free of cost as the purchase memo/bill was not produced before O.P No.2 on 05.01.2017.  The retail invoice/cash memo/bill dt.10.03.2016 indicates that the phone was given for repair on 05.03.2015 and was marked” in warranty” which indicates that the purchase memo/bill was produced before O.P No.2 while giving such phone for repair to prove that the set was within the warranty of one year.  But the retail invoice/cash memo/Bill dt.05.01.2017 indicates that the phone was given on 04.01.2017 for repair and was marked  “out of warranty”, which indicates that the purchase memo/bill was not produced before O.P No.2 while giving such hand set on 04.01.2-17.  The O.ps have stated in their written version that purchase memo/bill was not given to O.P No.2 on 04.01.2017 for which it was not possible to know that whether the set was within the warranty or not.  The terms and conditions of warranty indicate clearly that the original proof of purchase is necessary to get the benefits of warranty. The complainant has also not indicated anywhere that the purchase memo was produced before O.P No.2 on 04.01.2017.  The complainant has also not produced any proof/evidence that the mobile set was a defective one or it was an old telephone.  Since no complaint was lodged with O.P No.2 between 05.03.2016 to 04.01.2017 we have observed that the hand set was functioning without any problem from March,2016 to January,2017 for a period of about 10 months.

           ORDER

Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above and to meet the ends of justice, we have observed that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence the case is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the  28^th  day of July,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

   (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                        Member.

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                    (  Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                        President.

 

                                                                                                (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                              Member(W).