THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Wednesday the 4^TH day of February, 2015

C.C.No.103/2013

Between:

B.Praveen Kumar,

S/o B.Samuel,

Aged about 30 Years,

H.No.86/289/5/5,

Mahalakshmi Nagar,

B-Camp, Kurnool-518 002.                                            …Complainant

-Vs-

1. Proprietor,

   Sony Experience Store,

   Mountain Plaza,

   Opp. Lumbini Jewel Mall,

   Banjara Hills, Road No.2,

   Hyderabad-500 034.

2. Proprietor,

    Rayalaseema Enterprises,

    Shop No.16-17, RMK Plaza,

    Opp.Zillaparishad,

    Kurnool-518 001.                                              …OPPOSITE PARties

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.T.Eswar Babu, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                          ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)

      C.C. No.103/2013

1.       This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To directing the opposite parties to return to price of the Cell Phone Rs.37,990/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of purchase of Cell Phone i.e., 03-04-2013 to till the date of payment to the complaint. 

(OR)

To replace new Similar Cell Phone to the complainant.

2. To grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.

3. To grant the cost of the complaint.

4. To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The opposite party No.1 is the proprietor of Sony Experience Store at Hyderabad  and opposite party No.2 is the Authorized Service Centre of opposite party No.1 at Kurnool.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 have advertised in the leading news papers that they are introducing the new model X PERIA-Z Cell Phone and that mobile has dust and water resistant.  The complainant attracted the advertisement and purchased X PERIA-Z model Cell Phone from opposite party No.1 for Rs.37,990/- as invoice No.809812 dated 03.04.2013. A warranty issued for a period of one year to the complainant, but within 3 months after purchase, it was not functioning.  The complainant handed over it to opposite party No.2 vide Job Card No.W113072791137 dated 27.07.2013.  Opposite party No.2 did not rectified the defects in it and also not return the Cell Phone to the complainant.  The complainant approached opposite party no.2 several times but opposite party No.2 did not respond and demanded 50% of amount to replace the new cell phone.  The opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice and clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Due to negligent attitude of opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony.  Hence the complaint.

3.       Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version stating that the complaint is vexations and an abuse of the process of law.  There is no cause of action to file this complainant.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased the Cell Phone Sony X PERIA-Z model C.6602 from opposite party No.1 dated 03.04.2013.  The warranty provided by Sony India Private Limited to the complainant on purchase of the mobile phone is valid for one year from the date of purchase.  The complainant has not followed the user guide terms and conditions.  The cell phone was submerge in water expose the device any liquid chemicals expose the device to moist environments with extreme high or low temperature.  The cell phone is having “Liquid ingression” it was dumped in water, as such the micro SIM Card and all other features are failed and in such cases, warranty does not extend to the purchaser.  The opposite party No.2 service engineer found that the said handset was damaged due to ingress of liquid and the liquid indicator was red.  Due to fault of complainant it was damaged.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       On behalf of the complainant filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed.  On behalf of opposite parties filed Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 is filed. 

5.       Both sides filed written arguments.

6.       Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant purchased a cell  phone Sony X PERIA-Z from opposite party No.1 for Rs.37,990/- vide bill Invoice No.809812 dated 03.04.2013 which is marked as Ex.A1.  Broucher of the Sony Company is marked as Ex.A3=Ex.B4.  The photo copy of Sony Important Information is marked as Ex.A4=Ex.B5.  It is the case of the complainant that within 3 months after the purchase of it, the cell phone was not functioning, so he handed over it to opposite party No.2 for repairs.  The opposite party No.2 issued Job Card No.W113072701137 dated 27.07.2013.  The opposite party No.2 neither removed the defects nor return it, when the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and asked about the cell phone, he demanded 50% bill amount to replace new cell phone.  The complainant stated in his sworn affidavit that the opposite parties made a false advertisement that the mobile phone has water and dust resistant.  The opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice for the purpose of promotion the sale. 

          It is the case of opposite parties that the Sony India Private Limited has provided warranty for one year from the date of purchase.  If during the warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in material, the Sony Authorized distributors, or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein.  The water resistant of the micro USB port the micro SD card, the micro SIM Card and the handset connector is not guaranteed in all environments or conditions.  Opposite party No.2 engineer found that the cell phone was damaged due to ingression of liquid in it, so the terms and condition of the normal warranty has been rendered void.  The liability under taken in contract between person would be limited to extend under taken.  To support their version the opposite parties cited decisions Ishwarlal Amarnani -Vs- Hero Puch R.P.No.2830/2007 in the cited case the Respondent promptly attended for three services even after the warranty period in respect of the vehicle, which is the minor in nature the National Commission held that there is no manufacturing defect, the onus is on the complainant to produce any expert opinion or proof in support of his contention of manufacturing defect.  But in the present case on hand the opposite parties did not respond to the complainant either to repair it and even did not take steps to render the services.

          The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that within 3 months of purchase, the said mobile was fail to function, the opposite party made false advertisement, and misleading advertisement to promote their sale, opposite party No.1 provided warranty of one year from the date of  purchase.  If it fails to operate, the product will  at their option either to repair or replace or refund the purchase price of the cell phone.  The opposite parties have guaranteed that the cell phone has water resistant in depths of between 0 to 100 CM for up to 30 minutes.  As stated by opposite parties if the phone is submerged in water enter four sides of it strip paper changed in red colour.  As per EX.A2 one side of strip paper changed in red colour.  To support his version he cited decisions reported I (2006) CPJ 129 (NC) where in directions issued for withdrawal of misleading advertisement under section 14 (1) (f) and issued correct advertisement under section 14 (1) (hc) of the Act.  In II (2006) CPJ Page 289 (NC) it was held that manufacturing defect was found during the warranty period, so the direction was given to pay entire cost of machine along with cost and compensation. 

8.       Admittedly the complainant purchased the cell phone from opposite party No.1 under Ex.A1 dated 03.04.2013 and within 3 months it was fails to function, so the complainant handed over it to opposite party No.2 under Ex.A2 dated 27.07.2013.  The opposite party No.2 neither repaired it nor return it even though the complainant made several request to opposite party No.2 they did not render the services to the complainant.  As seen from Ex.A3=Ex.A4=Ex.B4=Ex.B5 it is every clear that the opposite parties made false and misleading advertisement that the cell phone has a dust and water resistant up to 1 meter and 30 minutes, believing the false advertisement of opposite parties the complainant purchased it, within 3 months of purchase during the warranty period of mobile  phone, it was found that it was not functioning, which could not have been possible at all, it has been a case of defective product.  The opposite parties raise plea that an account of ingression of liquid into cell phone, it was not function is baseless.  The authorized service centre ought to have repair it.  But the opposite parties are deficient in rendering services to the complainant.  As seen from Ex.A4=Ex.B5, Ex.A3=Ex.B4 it is evident that the opposite parties made false advertisement relating to water and dust resistance in said mobile Sony X PERIA-Z but it was failed to function within warranty period.  Instead of rectify it, the opposite parties paid deafears.  We consider all the material available on record and in the light of above decisions we hold a view that there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, and caused mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to replace the new similar cell phone or to return the costs of the cell phone with interest at 9%.  Due to the attitude of opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony and monetary loss. 

11.     In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace new similar cell phone (OR) to return cell phone cost of Rs.37,990/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e., on 03.04.2013 till the date of payment and further direct to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case.  Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. 

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 4^th day of February, 2015.

Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                             Witnesses Examined

For the complainants:- Nil                                                                                            For the opposite parties:- Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainants:-

Ex.A1           Bill dated 03-04-2013.

Ex.A2          Service Job Sheet.

Ex.A3          Broucher of the Sony Company.

Ex.A4          Internet copy of Literature of the Sony Xeperia

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                    Photo copy of Order copy High Court of New Delhi.

Ex.B2                   Photo copy of Letter issued by Sony Authorized Service Centre

                   dated 29-11-2013.

Ex.B3                   Photo copy of Reply Letter dated 29-03-2011 issued by Sony

                   India Private Limited, New Delhi.

Ex.A4          Photo copy of Sony Broucher.

Ex.A5          Photo copy of Sony Important Information.

Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties    :

Copy was made ready on                   :

Copy was dispatched on                    :