Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 453.
Instituted on : 05.10.2015.
Decided on : 23.05.2016.
Deepak s/o Sh. Jagdish Rai, r/o village Paksma, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Sai Security Systems, Near Malabar Guest House, Green Road, Rohtak-124001, Haryana, Contact No.01262-251300, 8607125300.
- Sony India Private Limited, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, www.sony.co.in.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a single SIM Sony Xperia mobile phone bearing model no.Z2D6502 and has paid Rs.34000/- for the same. It is averred that from the very first day of its use, the said mobile phone was not working properly. It is averred that complainant visited the opposite party no.1 i.e. authorized service centre of the company on 29.09.2015. The representative of customer care took a job sheet and not checked the mobile phone. It is averred that complainant approached the opposite party to replace the mobile phone but opposite party refused to do so. It is averred that despite repeated requests, opposite party did not return the mobile and lastly the complainant has to purchase a new mobile. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.50000/- for the loss suffered by him and Rs.20000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein at the time of approaching the opposite parties, the OPs upon inspection found out that the handset is affected with liquid and therefore the warranty stands void. It is averred that the opposite parties as a gesture of goodwill have offered an exchange on 80% of the MRP on any new handset but the complainant has not responded to it yet. On merits it is submitted that the complainant has concealed this fact that his phone had suffered water ingression at the time of approaching the OPs for repairs because he feared that the OPs shall decline repairs within warranty. It is averred that in the present case, the warranty has become void and repairs are now chargeable at the expenses of the complainant. It is averred that the problems faced by the complainant is due to his own negligence and carelessness. Thus the complainant does not deserve any relief at all. It is averred that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such it is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per bill Ex.C1 the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 08.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.34000/- of Sony Xperia Company. It is also not disputed that as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 29.09.2015 there was Mic. problem and the condition of set was water damage and a noting was given on the document that “Handset is liquid damage and is not covered under warranty.” The contention of complainant is that the opposite parties returned the mobile set without repair on the ground that mobile was liquid damaged whereas the mobile is water proof. It is further contended that complainant had to purchases a new handset which had caused financial loss to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled for the refund of price alongwith compensation from the opposite parties. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite parties is that upon inspection it was found that the handset is affected with liquid. 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 terms.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the defects in the mobile set appeared during the warranty period and the same could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties on the ground that handset is affected with liquid and the defect in the set is due to external factor hence the warranty is void. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the document Ex.R3 whereby the warranty of the product is for one year from the original date of purchase and as per Clause 3 of this document it is submitted that the warranty does not cover any failure of the product that is due to “Use in environments where relevant IP rating limitations, if applicable, are exceeded (including liquid damage or the defection of liquid inside the device resulting from such use). But in the present cases opposite party has not placed on record any Inspection report that the mobile was liquid logged due to the use of mobile phone other than the warranty conditions. Regarding the defect occurred in the mobile set within warranty period, we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others whereby Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified. The set in question is in the possession of complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set. As such it is directed opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.34000/-(Rupees thirty four thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.10.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. However complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question with accessories(if any) to the opposite parties. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.05.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
