BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: WARANGAL
Present : Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
And
Sri Patel Praveen Kumar,
Member.
Tuesday, the 21st day of June, 2011.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.40/2010
Between:
P.Praveen Kumar, S/o Ramaiah,
Age: 33 yrs, Occ: Advocate,
R/o H.No.8-7-176, Station Road,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
And
1. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt.Ltd,
Rep. by its Manager,
4th floor, Dakha House, 18/17,
WEA Karol Bagh,
New Delhi – 110005.
2. Hitesh Electronics (Sony Exclusive),
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Sony Products authorized Dealer,
H.No.1-7-1079, Beside S.B.H.
Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda,
Warangal District.
3. Anu Mobile Gallery, Rep.by its Manager,
Sony Ericsson Certified Service Centre,
2nd floor, Shop NO.D-28,29, Green Square Plaza Complex,
Opp: Public Garden, Hanamkonda,
Warangal District 506 001.
… Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainant :: Sri P.Praveen Kumar, Advocate.
Opposite Party No.1 :: Did not appear and has been Set Exparte.
Counsel for the Opposite parties 2 & 3 :: Sri R.Ananda Rao, Advocate.
This complaint is coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following order.
CC 40/2010 -- 2 --
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This complaint is filed by the complainant P.Praveen Kumar against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to Replace the new Mobile hand set, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards expenses and costs.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant is as follows:
The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased Sony Ericsson Mobile Phone vide Bill No.307, dated 30-10-2009 for Rs.8,800/- from opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.3 is the Authorized Service Center at Hanamkonda and opposite party No.1 is the company. About one month back the said mobile started giving problem as “No Answering”, for which the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and requested to provide service as there is warranty period, but the opposite party NO.3 has not attended the repairs and have issued job card dated 14-05-2010 stating that Mobile Phone is dead because of liquid damage with oblique intentions. The act of opposite party No.3 amounts to deficiency of service. Due to non-functioning of mobile, the complainant suffered a lot. The complainant sent legal notice dated 02-06-2010 to opposite parties, for which no reply is received. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to replace the new mobile hand set, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, to pay expenses of the complainant at Rs.50,000/- with costs.
Inspite of issuance of notice to opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 did not appear before this Forum. Hence, this Forum set him Exparte.
The opposite parties 2 and 3 filed the Written Version stating that it is true the complainant has purchased the said produce i.e, Sony Ericsson Mobile Phone, Model No.W580i, with IMEI/Serial NO.351649035749026 vide Bill NO.307 for Rs.8,800/- from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 having received said consideration amount and handed over the above
said sealed cell phone with a book-let and other accessories pertaining to the said product. The complainant at the time of purchase was also informed to follow the Rules and Regulations of the Booklet and to use the cell phones as laid down, the complainant utilized the said cell phone for more than a period of 6 months and due to his mis-operating and usage of the same the said cell phone was spoiled in his custody. Later the complainant approached the
CC 40/2010 -- 3 --
opposite party No.2 who sent for rectification of defect to opposite party No.3 who opened and inspected the said cell phone and found that the cell phone is dead due to liquid damage i.e, if the cell phone fell into water or water container the cell phone received such water and it becomes dead and will not function due to presence of liquid in the said cell phone as such it is called Liquid Damage, which is the fault of the person who uses the said product. So there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and requested this Forum to dismiss this case.
The complainant in support of his claim, filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of opposite parties Sri K.Srinivas Reddy filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 and B-2.
Now the point for consideration is:
1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so, to what Relief?
Point No.1:-
After arguments of both side counsels our reasons are like this:
The main argument of complainant is that he purchased Sony Ericsson Mobile from opposite party No.1 vide Bill No.307 dated 30-10-2009 for Rs.8,800/- from opposite party NO.2, opposite party No.3 is the Authorised Service Center and opposite party No.1 is the company. About one month back the said mobile started giving problem as “No Answering”, for which the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and requested to provide service as there is warranty period, but the opposite party No.3 has not attended the repairs and have issued job card dated 14-05-2010 stating that Mobile Phone is dead because of liquid damage with oblique intentions. The act of opposite party No.3 amounts to deficiency of service. Due to non-functioning of mobile, the complainant suffered a lot.
Further argued that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 because after purchasing of the aid cell it is not functioning properly i.e., starting giving problem is “No answering” and requested the opposite parties to repair the same but he has issued job cards stating that the cell phone is dead.
CC 40/2010 -- 4 --
Now this Forum has to see under what circumstances the cell phone is dead.
As per Ex.B-1 i.e., Terms and Conditions of the cell phone Regulations Book Let given to complainant with instructions to follow the same and to operate the said produce and also informed to follow the rules and regulations of the Booklet and to use the cell phone as laid down. The complainant agreed the same and used the said mobile phone for a period of more than 6 months and in page NO.76 of the Book let, it shows “The warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal tear and wear or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal and customary manner, in accordance with the Sory Ericsson instructions for use and maintenance of the product. Nor does the warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, software or hardware modification or adjustment acts of God or damage resulting from liquid”.
This means if the cell failed due to some other things like accident or drowned in the water this warranty does not cover and give new cell phone. In the present case the opposite party No.2 sent for rectification of defect of cell phone to opposite party No.3, who opened and inspected the said cell phone and found that the cell phone is dead due to Liquid Damage. So liquid
damage does not cover under the warranty. When the liquid damage is not covered under the warranty certainly the opposite parties are not entitled to give new piece. What is Liquid damage the opposite parties stated in their written Version that “if the cell fell into the water or water container the cell phone received such water it becomes dead and will not function due to presence of liquid in the said cell as such it is called Liquid Damage. In the present case also the cell got liquid damage. When the cell got liquid damage certainly the opposite parties are not liable to pay anything. We accept the report of Service Engineer i.e, Ex.B-2 he clearly stated in his report that “Rejected because of liquid damage” that is the reason only he rejected to repair the cell. So as per Ex.B-2 the cell got liquid damage. When the cell got liquid damage it does not cover under warranty i.e, in Ex.B-1 in page no.36 in conditions No.3 as we already stated in supra. It clearly goes to show that the complainant is not entitled to get anything. The main thing is that the cell phone got liquid damage, when the cell got liquid damage it does not cover under warranty.
CC 40/2010 -- 5 --
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we see no grounds to allow this complaint and we answered this point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
Point No.2: To what Relief:- The first point is decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant this point is also decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result this complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 21st June, 2011).
President Male Member
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite parties
Affidavit of Complainant filed Affidavit of Opposite party NOs. 2 & 3 filed
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
01. Ex.A-1 is the original purchase bill of complainant issued by Opposite Party NO.2, dt.20-10-2009.
02. Ex.A-2 is the original service job sheet issued by Anu Mobile Gallery.
03. Ex.A-3 is the office copy of legal notice issued to opposite parties, dt.02-06-2010.
04. Ex.A-4 is the Acknowledgment cards. (03)
ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Ex.B-1 is the Booklet of Sony Ericsson.
2. Ex.B-2 is the job card of Sony Ericsson.
PRESIDENT
