Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/629

AnjuKakkarW/oPawanKakkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution: 11.10.2013

Complaint Case. No.629/13                                              Date of order:15.05.2017

IN  MATTER OF

AnjuKakkarW/oPawanKakkar R/o 16/83, Third Floor, Right Side Subhash Nagar, New Delhi.                                                                                     Complainant

VERSUS

1.        Sony India Private Limited, Registered Office:A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Rad, New Delhi-110044. Opposite party no.1

2.        Service Point, Authorized Service Centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,7A/F19, DDA Building, First Floor, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.                                                                                                       Opposite party no.2

3.        Honey Telecom, G-8, Savitri Market, Sector-18, Noida.                                                                                                                                     Opposite party no.3

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Smt. AnjuKakkar complainant named above has filed the present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection for directions to Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and others here in after in short referred as the opposite parties for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.36,500/- cost of mobile handset with interest @24% per annum and pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony by the opposite parties on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency  in service and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

The brief relevant  facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint stated are that the complainant on 01.05.13 purchased a mobile handset Sony Xperia Z (C-6602) with IEMI no.355666052073003  from the opposite party no.3 manufactured by the opposite party no.1 for sum of Rs.36,500/-. The handset is sold with water and dust resistance features. But to the utter shock of the complainant the mobile on 20.08.13 stopped working completely. The complainant immediately visited the opposite party no.2 for replacement or repair of the mobile being under warranty. But the opposite party no.2 refused to replace or repair the handset and demanded 80% of the purchase value of the mobile for replacement of the mobile on the ground that the mobile is affected by liquid ingression. The complainant neither put the mobile to ocean or swimming pool or to hot water or to other liquid chemical with ports open or not closed tightly. Therefore, the complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party no.1 for repair or replacement of the mobile. The opposite party no.1 replied that the mobile stopped working due to ingression of liquid while ports were open or not closed tightly. The complainant on 13.09.13 sent a reminder to the opposite party no.1. Butthey neither repaired nor replaced the mobile. Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.36,500/- cost of mobile handset with interest @24% per annum and pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony by the opposite parties on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency  in service and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

After notice the opposite parties appeared and filed joint reply while admitting that the complainant on 01.05.13 purchased mobile handset Sony Xperia Z (C-6602) with IEMI no.355666052073003 from the opposite party no.3 for sum of Rs.36,500/- with limited one year warranty. The mobile had water resistance warranty. But due to misuse and mishandling of the mobile liquid ingressed the mobile. Hence the warranty became void and the opposite parties are not liable to repair or replace the mobile. However, as a good will gesture the opposite parties are ready to replace the mobile on payment of 80% of the cost of the mobile. All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties controverting stand of the opposite parties and reiterating her stand and once again prayed for directions as prayed in the complaint.

When Smt. AnjuKakkarcomplainantwas asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, she tendered in evidence her affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant also relied upon photos of the mobile, invoice no.899 dated 01.05.13, legal notice, reminder of the legal notice, warranty card and job sheet no.W113082402544 dated 24.08.13.

When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence they tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms. Meena Bose narrating facts of the reply. The opposite parties also relied upon warranty of the mobile. The opposite parties also filed written arguments in support of their version.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record carefully and thoroughly.

After having heard both the sides at length and going through the material available on record, it is common case of the parties that the complainant on 01.05.13 purchased a mobile handset Sony Xperia Z (C-6602) with IEMI no.355666052073003  from the opposite party no.3manufactured by the opposite party no.1 for sum of Rs.36,500/- with one year limited warranty. The mobile stopped working 20.08.13. Therefore, the mobile was delivered to the opposite party no.2 authorized service center of the opposite party no.1. Who refused to repair the mobile as the warranty had become void. From perusal of the job sheet, it reveals that the warranty had become void due to liquid ingress.

Before proceeding further it is worthwhile to reproduce, clause 3 of the . Which read as under:-

“Clause 3

The Warranty does not cover any failure of the Product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product. Nor does this Warranty cover any failure of the Product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid.”

From bare readings of the clause 3 of the warranty it is evident that the warranty of the mobile is limited and does not cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment or acts of God or damage resulting from liquid.

Admittedly, the mobile of the complainant damaged from liquid ingressed, therefore, the warranty has become void. Hence, the opposite parties are not liable to repair or replace the mobile. Therefore, there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Resultantly, there is no merit in the complaint. The complaint fails and is hereby dismissed. File be consigned. 

Order pronounced on :15.05.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          ( R.S.  BAGRI )

               MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT