| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 22.1.2016 Decided on: 17.11.2016 Smt. Anuja Walia w/o Shri Ankush Sharma, resident of H.No.150, Manjit Nagar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Sankalap Electronics, SCF 9, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Opp. Iqbal INN , Patiala.
- Sony India North Delhim A31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Ritin Vatrana,Adv.counsel for the complainant. Sh.Puneet Gupta,Advocate,counsel for Opposite Parties No.1&2. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA,MEMBER - The complainant purchased on mobile phone make Sony/H/S-XPE from O.P. No.1 on 19.2.2015 for an amount of Rs.34,999/-. It is averred that on 27.10.2015, the said mobile phone stopped working and on 28.10.2015, the complainant approached OP No.1 and deposited the mobile phone with OP No.1 who issued a job card to the complainant with the comments, ‘Net work not showing’ and water indication ‘Red’. It is further alleged that the said mobile phone was water resistant. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP No.1 several times but OP No.1 kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. On 18.12.2015, the complainant served a registered legal notice to the OP asking for the replacement of the mobile phone with a new one but to no use. Thus, failure on the part of the O.Ps. to replace the mobile phone with a new one amounted to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act).
- On notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. It is an admission on the part of O.Ps. that the mobile phone was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1.The only plea taken by the O.Ps is that the reason for the water to ingress the mobile was due to some open ports or cracks due to mishandling/rough handling of the mobile phone on the part of the complainant. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of her complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit alongwith other documents from Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and her counsel closed the evidence.
- Whereas the counsel for the O.Ps. tendered in evidence Ex.OPA,the sworn affidavit of Sh.Priyank Chauhan alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence.
- The complainant failed to file written arguments. OPs filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C2 is the copy of invoice vide which the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP No.1 for Rs.34,999/-on 19.2.2015.Ex.C3 shows that one can snap away under water as the mobile phone is both dust and water resistant. Exs.C4 to C8 show that the mobile phone in question was water resistant. Ex.C9 is the job sheet dated 28.10.2015 showing the problem, ‘Net work not show, water indication red’ in the mobile phone since 28.10.2015, the mobile phone has been lying with the service centre of the company who has neither rectifiled the problem nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant.
- The only plea taken by the OPs is that reason for the water to ingress the mobile phone was due to some open ports or cracks due to mishandling/rough handling of the mobile phone by the complainant. As per Ex.C3 ( snap away under water) “With the waterproof Xperia Z2, you can take picture while swimming in freshwater for upto 30 minutes. You can even dive upto 1.5m with it. Just remember that all the covers for the micro USB part, the micro SIM slot and the memo card slot must be firmly closed.” It is alleged that as the connectors/ports of the mobile phone in question were not perfectly closed at the time of the incident, it resulted into liquid damage. But nothing is mentioned on the job sheet that as the connectors/parts of the mobile phone were not properly closed so the water entered the mobile phone.
- In the present case as per Ex.C3 to Ex.C8, it is clear that the mobile phone in question was water resistant. The complainant purchased the mobile phone on 19.2.2015 and it stopped functioning on 28.10.2015, i.e. during warranty period.Ex.C9 shows the problem as ‘water indication red’. If the indication is red, it shows that the water has entered into the mobile phone. The problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the O.Ps. were bound to rectify the same which it failed to rectify and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OPs No.1&2 to rectify the problem in the mobile phone and if that is not possible to replace it with a new one of the same make and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.34,999/- the same being the price of the mobile phone. OPs. are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant, which is inclusive of the costs of litigation. Order be complied by the O.Ps. within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER DATED:17.11.2016 | |
