BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 508/2014 Filed on 23.12.2014
ORDER DATED: 27.08.2021
Complainant: | : | Nazeer Khan, Ashmitha, PRA- 196A, Chadiyaa, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.Vijayakumar) |
Opposite parties | : | - M/s.Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (By Adv.J.S.Sabu)
- M/s.Duty Paid Shop, Capital Towers, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram .
- M/s.Prompt Services, 1st Floor, Bethel Tower, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.
|
The order delivered on 27/08/2021
ORDER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
The complainant has presented this complaint before this Forum under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging that the complainant purchased a mobile phone model Sony-D 805-163 7587 at a cost of Rs.14,500/- vide invoice No.1431 dated 28/10/2013 from the 2nd opposite party. Within two months of its purchase, the mobile phone went out of order and the same was taken to the service centre. Even though the set was having warranty coverage the 3rd opposite party demanded money from the complainant for repairing the mobile. The complainant send legal notices to all the opposite parties, but none of them responded. The complainant could not use the phone even for two months though it was purchased at a high cost of Rs.14,500/-. The warranty period for Sony product is for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase. So the complainant has filed this complaint.
The Opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version. The opposite parties 1 to 3 averred that the 1st opposite party provides a 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 cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty.
From the terms of the warranty it is clear that the opposite parties are liable to provide free of cost repair on its products in cases when the product is proved to be defective due to improper material, workmanship, any manufacturing defect or any other problem that has arisen in the product form the manufacturers side and not when the defect has arisen due to an external cause which is beyond the control of the opposite parties.
The complainant approached the 3rd opposite party for the first time on 14/03/2014 i.e., after using the handset for 5 months with the issue of “Phone Hangs”. However upon its thorough inspection by the service engineer of the 3rd opposite party it was found that the handset was having no defect at all and only the software of the handset was required to be upgraded which was duly upgraded by the Service Engineers of the opposite parties on free of cost basis and the handset was delivered to the complainant in perfect working condition.
The complainant again approached the 3rd opposite party on 12/06/2014 with the issue of “No Power, Dead”. However, upon thorough inspection of the handset it was found that the handset was damaged due to external cause of liquid ingression. The Service Engineers of the 3rd opposite party demonstrated the complainant evidence of liquid entry in the handset. The complainant was told that in such circumstances the handset cannot be covered under warranty terms and conditions.
The Service Engineers of 3rd opposite party provided the complainant with estimate of repair to which the complainant refuted and took back the mobile without repairs. After that the complainant issued a false legal notice against all the opposite parties stating to replace the handset.
All the claims allegations averments and contentions made by the complainant in the complainant are completely wrong. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the handset or there has been any deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Issues to be ascertained:
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 to 3?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination, but no documents were marked as he did not turn up. So many opportunities were given to the complainant for marking the documents but he failed to mark the documents. No evidence was put forth by the complainant for proving his case. Hence for want of evidence the case of complainant fails.
In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 27th day of August 2021.
Sd/-
P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 508/2014
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
