| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 267 of 2015 Date of Institution: 28.04.2015 Date of Decision: 02.12.2015 Mr.Sandeep Singh Randhawa, resident of 50, Adarsh Nagar, Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar (aged 25 years) Complainant Versus - Sony India Private Limited, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principal Officer.
- Shivani Electronics at 6, Kamal Tower, Near Kamal Palace, Batala Road, Amritsar through its proprietor/ partner.
- Soni Brothers, 38, The Mall, Amritsar through its proprietor/ partner.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Ajay Mehta, Advocate Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Sandeep Singh Randhawa under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one mobile set Sony Experia Z-2 from Opposite Party No.3 being marketed by Opposite Party No.1, for Rs.45,000/- on 7.6.2014. Complainant alleges that said mobile set from the very beginning has been suffering from the inherent manufacturing defect of getting hang while on receiving call and the sound quality is very poor besides low battery problem. The complainant made several complaints with Opposite Party No.2 which get it rectified several times. Said mobile set finally on 12.01.2015 get dead i.e. stopped working, the mobile set was taken to Opposite Party No.2 who kept it with them with the assurance to return the same after rectification of its defects, but Opposite Party No.2 till the filing of the complaint has not returned the mobile set to the complainant inspite of daily visits to the Opposite Party No.2. The complainant who was in dire need of the mobile set which had become a necessity in present social life had to purchase the new mobile set to meet his daily needs. Opposite Party No.2 has described it as liquid logged whereas the Opposite Parties advertise as well as in its catalogue describe the said mobile set as water resistant and can be utilized as underwater. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties are act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mal-practice. 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 of same make and model or in alternative refund the price of the mobile set alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that Opposite Party No.1 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and can not be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. Under the terms of warranty, the Opposite Parties are not liable to repair or replace the mobile set as the product lies outside the scope of warranty. The complainant after enjoying the mobile set in question, admittedly without any sort of defect for the period of 8 months approached Opposite Party No.2 for the very first time on 12.1.2015 raising the issues of irresponsive touch screen etc. However, on being inspected, the mobile set in question was found liquid logged, moreover, upon its thorough inspection the ‘PCB’ and the ‘Back Panel’ were also found to be badly damaged which was duly demonstrated to the complainant by showing its white liquid indicator which had turned into red color due to contact with liquid. Since the mobile set was found damaged on the account of liquid ingression the complainant therefore, collected his mobile set from Opposite Party No.2 on 14.3.2015 in un-repaired condition. Nevertheless, as goodwill gesture towards their customers the Opposite Parties, just to avoid dispute with the complainant, offered the complainant, a new mobile set of same make without accessories, in exchange at 80% MRP to which the complainant was not agreed. It is submitted that this offer of discount was made only in order to maintain customer satisfaction and were not admission of any liability on the part of the Opposite Parties, however, the said offer has not been responded by the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3.
- Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Priyank Chauhan Ex.OP1,2,3/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2,3/2 to Ex.OP1,2,3/6.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- 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 one mobile set Sony Experia Z-2 from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.45,000/- on 7.6.2014 with warranty of one year vide Invoice Ex.C3. Complainant submitted that said mobile set was defective from its very beginning. It was having problem of hanging and the sound quality was very poor besides low battery problem. Ultimately, mobile set in question became totally dead on 12.1.2015. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2- authorized service centre and handed over the mobile set to them who assured to return the same after rectification of its problems within few days, to the complainant, but Opposite Party No.2 did not return the mobile set to the complainant, till the filing of the present complaint inspite of so many visits made by the complainant to Opposite Party No.2. All this shows that mobile set in question is not repairable. Complainant further alleged that Opposite Party No.2 has described the mobile set as liquid logged whereas the Opposite Parties in its catalogue as well as advertisement in the media described the said mobile set as water resistant and can be utilized as underwater. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that Opposite Parties have sold the defective mobile set to the complainant and now they have failed to rectify the problem in the mobile set. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that Opposite Party No.1 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products including the mobile set of the complainant and Opposite Parties can not be held liable for the claim falling outside the scope of warranty as per warranty condition/ user’s guide Ex.OP1,2,3/3. Under the terms of warranty, Opposite Parties are not liable to repair or replace the mobile set, if the product lies outside the scope of warranty. The complainant enjoyed the product for a period of about 8 months and approached to authorised service centre for the first time on 12.3.2015 raising the issues of irresponsive touch screen etc. On being inspected, the mobile set in question was found liquid logged and the ‘PCB’ as well as ‘Back Panel’ of the mobile set were also found to be badly damaged which was duly demonstrated to the complainant by showing its white liquid indicator which had turned into red color due to contact with liquid as is evident from photographs Ex.OP1,2,3/5. Since the mobile set was found damaged on the account of liquid ingression, the complainant collected his mobile set from Opposite Party No.2 on 14.3.2015 in un-repaired condition, copy of job sheet in this regard dated 12.3.2015 is Ex.C2 which also shows liquid ingression in the mobile set. Opposite Parties further submitted that as goodwill gesture towards their customers, the Opposite Party No.1 just to avoid dispute with the complainant, offered to the complainant, a new mobile set of same make without accessories, in exchange at 80% MRP to which the complainant did not agree. However, this offer of discount was made only in order to maintain customer satisfaction and not admission of any liability on the part of the Opposite Parties, copy of offer letter dated 5.6.2015 is Ex.OP1,2,3/6. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.
- From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased mobile set in question from Opposite Party No.3 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 7.6.2014 vide invoice Ex.C3. Said mobile set became defective on 12.1.2015 and thereafter, said mobile set became totally dead/ stopped working and the same was handed over to Opposite Party No.2- authorized service centre vide job sheet Ex.C2, who did not repair the said mobile set on the ground that mobile set was found liquid logged and the ‘PCB’ as well as ‘Back Panel’ of the mobile set were also found to be badly damaged as a result of contact with liquid as is evident from photographs Ex.OP1,2,3/5. Opposite Party No.1 i.e. manufacturer of mobile set in question described in the advertisement as well as in the catalogue that said mobile set i.e. Sony Experia Z-2 mobile set is water resistant/ water proof and it can be used in even at more places i.e. kitchen, bathroom , outdoors and also in the pool i.e. under water. It is admitted case of the Opposite Party that mobile set became defective due to water logged. This plea of the Opposite Party is totally contrary to the terms and conditions described in the catalogue and brochure of this mobile set as well as in the demonstration of this mobile set given by the Opposite Parties to the general public in which it has been clearly mentioned that this mobile set can even be used in the pool (under water), as such it is totally water resistant. If the water/ liquid has entered into the mobile set as a result of which the mobile set has become defective, this all due to manufacturing defect in the mobile set, which is also against the description of the mobile set in the advertisement, brochure, catalogue, etc. of the mobile set in question as well as terms of the warranty of the mobile set in question. It has been clearly mentioned by the Opposite Party in their written version that mobile set is not repairable, the Opposite Party No.1 therefore, in para No.8 of the written version has admitted that just to avoid dispute with the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 offered to the complainant, a new mobile set of same make without accessories, in exchange at 80% MRP. Whereas the Opposite Parties are No.1 and 2 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model and if the same is not available, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are liable to refund the amount of the mobile set to the complainant alongwith interest.
- Resultantly, the complainant is allowed with costs and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the amount i.e. costs of price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.45,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. 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: 02.12.2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
