Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/250/2014

Rakesh Birla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

09 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/250/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	11/04/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	09/04/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Rakesh Birla S/o Sh. Siri Ram Birla, R/o 317, Sector 80, GMADA, Mohali.

 

Complainant

Versus

 

[1]  Sony India Pvt. Limited, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044.

 

[2]  M/s Goel Brothers, SCO 307, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

 

Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH. P.L. AHUJA             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

                     

Present:      Sh. Rajiv Kumar Singla, Auth. Agent of Complainant.

Sh. Amit Arora, Counsel for OPs.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant had purchased a Sony Xperia-L mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.15,000/- against invoice dated 02.11.2013, with one year warranty. It has been averred that in the second week of March 2014, the aforesaid mobile handset started giving problem and the Complainant contacted the Authorized Service Centre at Patiala on 16.3.2014. On 18.3.2014, the Engineer of the Authorized Service Centre at Patiala informed the Complainant that they would charge Rs.6800/- for repairing the handset, even though the same being within warranty period, but the Complainant did not agree. Thereafter, the Complainant also visited the Authorized Service Centre at Chandigarh on 23.3.2014, where also the Service Engineer informed that the handset would be repaired on payment of Rs.6200/-. This time also, the Complainant did not agree for the repairs on payment basis. Eventually, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.3.2014 (Annexure C-1) to the Opposite Party No.1, calling upon it to get the mobile handset in question repaired, free of cost, being within warranty. Not getting any positive response, the Complainant sent a reminder on 2.4.2014 to Opposite Party No.1, through e-mail, in response to which vide e-mail dated 3.4.2014, the Opposite Party No.1 reiterated its demand of Rs.6200/- for repairing the handset. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 29.05.2014.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the answering Opposite Party is liable to provide free of cost repair 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 from the manufacturer’s side and not when the defect has arisen due to an external cause. It has been asserted that the Complainant after a period of more than four months from the date of purchase of the handset, approached M/s Sankalp Electronics (Authorized Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1 at Patiala) on 18.3.2014, complaining of ‘Vertical lines on screen, display problem’ in the handset. Pursuant to the said Complaint, the Engineers of the Service Centre inspected the handset and found the same to be damaged due to external cause of water seepage/ ingression thereby, rendering the warranty void and immediately conveyed the fact of water seepage and vitiation of warranty term to the Complainant. Since the warranty term was rendered void therefore, the Engineers of the Service Centre offered estimate for chargeable repair of the handset to the Complainant, but the Complainant refused the same demanding free of cost repair of the handset. Subsequently, the representatives of Opposite Party No.1 also called up the Complainant and his wife on Mobile No. 9646104775 and 7589518780, when wife of the Complainant accepted the fact of handset getting wet in rain however, the Complainant later on blatantly refused to accept the same fact. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2.

 

5.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have appraised the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both the sides and heard the arguments addressed by the Authorized Agent of Complainant and learned Counsel for Opposite Parties.    

 

7.      It is evident from invoice (Annexure C-5) coupled with the affidavit of the Complainant that he purchased one Sony Xperia-L mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.15,000/-, on 02.11.2013. As per the case of the Complainant, the aforesaid mobile handset got defective within four months of its usage and therefore the Engineer of Authorized Service Centre at Patiala informed the Complainant on 18.03.2014 that the repair of the handset will be done for Rs.6,800/- even its being within the warranty period. The Engineer, at the Authorized Service Centre, at Chandigarh, also informed about its chargeable repair even its being within the warranty period. However, the Complainant himself did not agree for the repairs of the mobile handset on payment basis due to its being within the warranty period. Annexure C-1 is the legal notice dated 27.03.2014. Annexure C-2 and C-3 are the e-mail communications between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties to resolve the matter. Annexure C-4 is the promotional advertisement of the OP-Company for its various products.   

 

8.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that as the mobile handset in question got defective on account of water ingression, therefore, the repair could not be done under the warranty as per its terms & conditions due to external defect in the product.   

 

9.      Evidently, Annex.C-4 (Promotional Advertisement) provides damage cover, but there is no mention of damage cover for the Sony Xperia-L model which was purchased by the Complainant. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have placed on record a job-card as additional evidence, in which there is mention of word ‘Red’ under the column Liquid Intrusion Indicator and accordingly, it was not covered under the warranty for repairs. Over this document, there is mention of Condition of Set as ‘Dirty (Liquid Ingression)’. Furthermore, Opposite Parties have placed on record Annexure R-4 (pictures of the defective mobile handset) to show water ingression. However, the Complainant has not produced any cogent evidence/proof to rebut the same, despite opportunity granted to him.   

 

10.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09^th April,2015                                     

Sd/-  

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER