BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 514 of 2015

Date of Institution: 18.08.2015

Date of Decision: 18.02.2016

Rekha wife of Dalip Kumar daughter of Surinder Kumar, resident of 635, Adarsh Nagar, Islamabad, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Time Centre, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through authorized person.
2. Soni Bros (Electronic Services), SCO 24, Nehru Shopping Complex, Near Nandan Cinema Chowk, Amritsar.
3. Sony India Private limited (Sony Mobile Comm.) A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: In person.

              For  Opposite Party No1: Exparte

              For Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Sh.S.K.Sharma, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Rekha under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased a Sony XPeria C Purple Mobile Set from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill No. 36033 dated 21.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.15,650/-. Complainant alleges that the Mobile Set  in question became defective and she visited Opposite Party No.2- Authorized Service Centre  of Opposite Party No.3 Company. However, after retaining the Mobile Set  in question for four days,  Opposite Party No.2 had returned the same and refused to repair the same and asked the complainant to come up on 17.8.2015. On 17.8.2015 when the complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2, they issued job sheet No.W115081700957 and orally told that the Mobile Set  is not in repairable condition due to liquid ingression, whereas there was no such sign of liquid shown in the Mobile Set and the Opposite Party No.2 refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the Mobile Set  in question with new one.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, so Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.9.2015 of this Forum.
3. On notice, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per the record of the company, the complainant herein purchased one Sony XPERIA C/ C2305 Purple Mobile Set  (Non water resistant mobile phone) for Rs.15,650/- on 21.10.2014 from Opposite Party No.1, after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications alongwith the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the Mobile Set  in question. After enjoying the Mobile Set  in question for almost 10 months, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 13.8.2015 for an issue with the aforesaid Mobile Set. The issue of the complainant was duly attended by Opposite Party No.2 considering the fact that complainant is a valued customer. Complainant approached  Opposite Party No.2 with the symptoms diagnosed as: Power cant on (phone dead) (set found liquid ingress)/ Repair Action: Estimate rejected. Upon inspection it was observed that the Mobile Set  was affected by liquid (water ingression). Since the defect in the Mobile Set was due to external factor and not inherent defect in the Mobile Set (Plus the Mobile Set  is non water resistant model) under such circumstances the warranty stands void as per the warranty policy. Therefore, the repair of the subjected Mobile Set was on chargeable basis, which are to be borne exclusively by the complainant.  These facts and the estimated cost of repair was communicated to the complainant and the Mobile Set  in question was delivered back to the complainant on the same day i.e. 13.8.2015. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurwinder Singh Ex.OP2,3/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2,3/2 to Ex.OP2,3/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant as well as  ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant  purchased a Sony XPeria C Purple Mobile Set from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill No. 36033 dated 21.10.2014 Ex.C2  for a sum of Rs.15,650/-. Complainant submitted that on 13.8.2015 said Mobile Set became defective and did not work, rather became dead. She approached Opposite Party No.2- Authorized Service Centre of Opposite Party No.3 who returned the Mobile Set  in question to the complainant after 4 days without repair. The complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2- Authorized Service Centre  on 17.8.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C3, but again Opposite Party No.2 refused to repair the Mobile Set  in question on the ground that it is not repairable due to liquid ingression and the same is not covered under the warranty. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 is that the complainant purchased the Mobile Set  in question on 21.10.2014 vide invoice Ex.C2 and after enjoying the Mobile Set  in question for almost 10 months, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 13.8.2015 for the first time, and the issue of the complainant was duly attended by Opposite Party No.2 vide work order dated 13.8.2015 and the Mobile Set  was returned to the complainant as it was   diagnosed as Power cant on (phone dead) (set found liquid ingress)/ Repair Action, Estimate rejected and the Mobile Set  was delivered to the complainant on the same day i.e. 13.8.2015. Thereafter, the complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 on 17.8.2015 and she was given job sheet Ex.C3 in which it was categorically stated to the complainant that model purchased by the complainant was not water resistant and it was diagnosed that Mobile Set  was liquid ingress. Even on testing, the liquid intrusion indicator became red which fully proves that there was liquid ingression in the Mobile Set  in question, as a result of which same had become dead. As such, this defect was not covered under the warranty. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, therefore, were not bound to repair the Mobile Set  of the complainant under the warranty.  Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that  the complainant purchased the aforesaid Sony XPeria Mobile Set  from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice dated 21.10.2014 Ex.C2. Said Mobile Set became defective and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2- Authorized Service Centre  of Opposite Party No.3 vide job sheet dated 17.8.2015 Ex.C3. Mobile Set  of the complainant is ‘non water resistant’ and in this job sheet Ex.C3, which duly bears the signatures of the complainant, it has been categorically mentioned by Opposite Party No.2-Authorized Service Centre that the Mobile Set  is liquid ingress. Even on testing, the liquid intrusion indicator became red which fully proves that there was liquid ingression in the Mobile Set  in question, as a result of which same had become dead. As such, it was beyond warranty. Opposite Party No.2 has categorically mentioned this fact in the job sheet Ex.C3 that the warranty is void. So,  Opposite Party No.2 was justified in not repairing the Mobile Set in question under the warranty. The complainant can get the Mobile Set in question repaired from Opposite Party No.2 on chargeable basis as the defect in Mobile Set  of the complainant is not covered under the warranty.
10.  Consequently, we hold that there is no deficiency  of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.   Hence, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 18.02.2016.                                                             (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                       President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                Member                         Member