Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.06.2017 of the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata—II (Central) passed in CC/119/2017 by the Appellant/Complainant.
The fact of the complaint’s case in brief is that the Complainant had purchased a mobile hand set of Sony make from OP-2, M/s. Sony Centre, 165/1, C.I.T Road, Scheme VII-M-Ultadanga, Kolkata—700054 being serial no. AJPL/02470 EPERIA 25 Premium/E883 dated 30.12.2015 for Rs. 57,000/-. The mobile set became out of order ever since the purchase. The Complainant alleged several complaints in writing and over phone to OP-2, M/s. Sony Centre. The Complainant also handed over for rectification of the mobile to the Service Centre of M/s. Kalpataru IT Retails Pvt. Ltd., but they have returned the Complainant with job sheet without rectification of the mobile set. The Complainant has alleged that mobile set developed problem since the very beginning and it was manufacturing defect and has prayed for refund of the purchase amount along with other reliefs.
OP-1 entered the case by filing WV but OP-2 never appeared.
On hearing both sides, Ld. DCDRC allowed the Complaint Case with following observation:-
“It is alleged from the side of OP-1 that the handset was opened by unauthorized technicians and as a result the battery adhesive was found damaged and also frame was found dented and liquid indicator red set liquid engrossed too. We are afraid there is no such evidence on record that the subject mobile set was handled by any such unauthorized person. Moreover, the Complainant has filed a net copy about XPERIA-25 premium on record to the effect that XPERIA 25 Premium duel phone manifesting problems like Hang, heating problem, poor battery life, poor camera, head phone jack port un-functional etc. We find from the job sheet filed by the complainant that the customer complainant is “Head phone jack not detected loud, speaker cracking etc.” Moreover, we are also given to understand that the problem of the subject mobile was dent and the liquid indictor red set liquid engrossed too. We also find that the handset is covered under 90 days service warranty and it is stated that it is not possible to cure the defect and the servicing of the product is uneconomical. OP also offered a new Sony Handset sealed packed of any model of latest technology @ 80% of MRP of the product, in exchange of the existing handset of the Complainant. But the Complainant has not accepted any offer. We think that the product is found defective from the materials on record and such defect cannot be eradicated and in case of liquid ingression some parts may get gradually affected and it is possible that defect may appear at a later date. But the handset problem as we find cropped up within the warranty period.
We think it would be fit and proper to direct the OP to refund the purchase price of the mobile set with 30% deduction as the Complainant has used the mobile set for about one year before moving to this Forum and by then the warranty expired.”
Being aggrieved with the said order, Complaint/Appellant moved this appeal with a prayer to refund the entire prevalent amount.
Heard both sides at length. Ld. Advocate for the OP-1 stated nothing against the impugned order dated 07.06.2017.
On careful analysis of the entire record it appears to me that:-
- Mobile set was purchased on 30.12.2016
- 1st job sheet was dated 21.06.2016
- 2nd job sheet was dated 17.10.2016
- Mobile set was refunded without repair on 12.11.2016.
In view of the same, the observation of Ld. DCDRC to the extent of “the Complainant has used the mobile set for about one year” appears to be incorrect. Barring this the other portion needs no interference. In view of the same, deduction to the tune of 30% is reduced to 15%.
Hence,
Ordered
That A/1099/2017 be and the same is allowed in part. The order of Ld. DCDRC dated 07.06.2017 is hereby affirmed except deduction to the tune of 15% instead of 30%. The rest part of the order be remained intact.
