DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 679
Instituted on: 29.11.2016
Decided on: 11.04.2017
Gaurav Sharma son of Jagraj Kumar resident of H.No.210, Ward No.14-A, Near Kakarwal Pull, Dhuri, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Shiva Mobile Junction, Old Sabji Mandi, Kranti Chowk, Dhuri, District Sangrur through its proprietor.
2. Sony Mobile Care Center, near Nankiana Chowk, Oppo. K.T. Royal Hotel, Sangrur through its Manager.
3. Sony India Pvt. Limited, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial State, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044 through its Managing Director.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri J.S.Aulakh , Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1 : Exparte
FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.2&3 : Shri G.S.Toor, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Gaurav Sharma, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a mobile phone Sony-Xperia M-4 Acqua Dual from OP No.1 on 16.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.19500/- vide invoice no. 4286 dated 16.12.2015 under one year warranty. In the month of March 2016 the said mobile set started giving problem for which the complainant approached OP no. 2 who received the set and returned the same on 18.04.2016 but the mobile set again started giving problem as it hanged itself for number of times and the complainant approached OP no.2 but they are demanding of Rs.16000/- despite the fact that set is in guarantee period and is a dust tight and water proof. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to replace the mobile set with new one of same model to refund Rs.19500/- along with interest @12% per annum from 16.12.2015 till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no. 1 did not appear and as such OP no.1 was proceeded exparte.
3. In reply filed by the OPs no. 2 and 3, it is submitted that the complainant approached OP no.2 on 31.03.2016 raising an issue with said mobile handset and OP no.2 inspected the handset and it was observed that handset in question was brought in a physically damaged condition. The touch and display was broken and it seems as if the handset was roughly been used by the complainant. Again after using the handset eight months on 18.11.2016 the complainant approached OP no.2 who inspected the handset and it was observed that the handset in question got damaged due to liquid ingression. the side crome was dented and the back cover and lens were totally scratchy. Due to said condition of handset the warranty stands void as per warranty policy. Therefore an estimated cost of repair was shared with the complainant which was rejected by the complainant. The handset in question was damaged on account of liquid ingression. The liquid entered inside the handset through cracks developed due to rough usage of the handset and thereby causing damage to the handset. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs no.2 and 3.
4. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no.2 and 3 has tendered documents Ex.OP.2 and 3/1 to Ex.OPs 2 and 3/7 and closed evidence.
5. It is an admitted fact on record that the complainant purchased a mobile i.e. Sony Xperia M-4 Acqua Dula of Rs.19500/- from OP no.1 on 16.12.2015 which is evidence from retail invoice number 4286 dated 16.12.2015 Ex.C-2. The OPs case is that the complainant approached OP no.2 on 31.03.2016 with complaint of touch and broken display which is evident from job sheet issued by the OP no.2 Ex.C-3. Thereafter on 18.11.2016 the complainant again approached the OP no.2 and it was found that handset was damaged due to liquid ingression and liquid entered inside due to complainant's own negligence which proves from the job sheet dated 18.11.2016 Ex.C-4.
6. It is complainant's case that the mobile set in question is water proof and dust tight. But he has not produced any prove/ document which shows that the handset in question is water proof and dust tight. There is no mention on the retail invoice about the water proof of the set in question. The complainant has not produced any other record/ document issued by the company which shows that the mobile set in question is water proof. The complainant has only produced on record description of the mobile set i.e. Xoperia TM M4 Aqua Dual Ex.C-5 wherein it has been mentioned that" Get more with two powerful cameras, waterproofing and a 2-dat battery. This document has not been issued by the OPs company rather the same has been received by the complainant from the internet. The OPs have produced on record document Ex.OPs2&3/4 which is an important information of Sony regarding the set in question wherein it has been mentioned 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 detection of liquid inside the device resulting from such use). The complainant has not specifically denied the fact that the handset was damaged due to liquid ingression. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any report of expert which shows that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question.
7. For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has failed to prove his case and as such the complaint of the complainant is dismissed however the OPs are directed to handover the mobile set of the complainant whenever he approaches for collecting the same. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
April 11, 2017
( Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
BBS/-
