Haryana

Ambala

CC/187/2015

Lovely - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Sai Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 187 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution         : 09.07.2015

                                                          Date of decision   : 27.02.2017

 

          Lovely son of Sh. Baldev Raj residentof village Phalsanda Jatian P.O.      Sangor, Tehsil Babain, District Kurukshetra.  

……. Complainant.

 

1. Om Sai Mobiles, Railway Road, Barara Distt. Ambala, through its prop./partner.
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-OP, Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
3. Ambey electronics Service, DSS-14, Sector-1, Near Mind Three School, HUDA Shopping Complex, Ambala City.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Navneet Singh, counsel for OP No. 1.

                   Sh. B.D. Bakshi, counsel for OPs No. 2 and 3.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased one Sony X-peria E3 D-2212 EMIE No. 355289061424941 mobile from OP No. 1 vide bill No. 6463 dated 29.09.2014 for Rs. 12,000/- which was having one year warranty. Further submitted that in the month of June 2015, the complainant approached the OP No. 3 who refused to accept the said mobile for repair but he refused to repair the same and also demanded Rs. 4000/- for the repair of the said mobile. Further submitted that the complainant again approached to OP No.4 for 2-3 times but the OP NO. 1 did not give proper reply. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No. 1 appeared and submitting that it was ever assured by the OP No. 1 to the complainant that in case of any defect the set will be replaced or repair by the Op No. 3 and it is necessary to mention here that the OP No. 1  is only a retailer selling mobile set of various companies and nothing to do with the guarantee or warrantee as may provided by the manufacturer of these items.

                   OP No. 2 appeared and submitting that the complainant has not come to the learned Forum with clean hands and should thus not be entertained at all. Further submitted that the complainant has physically damaged his phone on his own. The complainant approached the OPs on inspection of the handset, the ASC of the OP No. 2 found that the handset was externally damaged, as a result of which the warranty of the OP No. 2 was rendered void on the handset. 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 the warranty policy and repairs of the subject set will be on chargeable basis which are to be borne exclusively by the customer.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-2 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs No. 2 and 3 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X & R-Y alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased one Sony X-pirca E3 D-2212 EMIE No. 355289061424941 mobile from OP No. 1 vide bill No. 6463 dated 29.09.2014 for Rs. 12,000/- which was having one year warranty which was having one year warranty started giving problems in the first week of June 2015 and the complainant approached the OP No. 3 who refused to accept the said mobile for repair and also demanded Rs. 4000/- for the repair of the said mobile.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OP No. 2 and 3 has produced expert report of Sh. Mohit Gupta working as Service Engineer at M/s Pushpak Enterprises Solemnly affirm Annexure R-Y whereby “The handset Sony X-peria E3 Dual/D2212 IMEI No. 355289061424941 was inspected at the authorized service centre namely M/s Pushpak Enterprises, Kurukshetra and found physically damaged due to external impact. The handset was observed to be damaged and displayed flaked screen. The same has been caused due to misuse by the complainant and therefore both the warranty has become void. There is no manufacturing defect in the above said handset. It is clear from the Expert report that the mobile in question has not any type of manufacturing defect. Perusal of document Annexure R-4 terms and conditions of warranty reveals that “if the Product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in design, materials or workmanship, Sony authorized distributors or service partner, in the country/region where you purchased the product, will at their option, either repair, replace or refund the purchase price of the product in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated herein.

5                 In the present case, the complainant failed to prove the mobile in question is having any manufacture defect. In this way, the complainant failed to prove his case in the absence of cogent evidence and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.              

 Announced on :27.02.2016                                                  Sd/-        

                                                                                      (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR) 

             Member