Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1065/2014

BRAHMPRAT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.      1065 /2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 20/11/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                15/12/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         18/12/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr Brahmpreet Singh, adult   

S/o- Sh. Narender Singh 

R/o- 185, South Anarkali,

Som Bazar Chauk, Delhi 110051………………………….……..…………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1- Sony India Pvt Ltd

Plot no. A 31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area

Okhla Phase 1, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044

 

2- M/s Immortal Services        

B-35/2, First Floor, Guru Nanak Pura   

Opp. V3S Mall, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092

 

3- The New Star communications

103/3, Gurudwara Road, Rashid Market,

Patpargunj Delhi 110051 ….………………………………………………………….……Opponents

 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

 

Complainant, Brahmpreet Singh, purchased a Sony Xperia T2 Ultra white mobile from OP3/ M/s New Star Communications on 19/04/2014 having model no. 351867062837403 with accessories for a sum of Rs 23500/-in cash after giving discount of Rs 2000/-vide cash memo no. 597 (Ex CW1/1) with one year standard warranty.

It was stated that after three months of use, the outer silver edge covering got peeled off and battery was getting discharged very fast, so took his mobile to OP2/ service centre where it got repaired and battery was replaced, but complainant asked for replacement of mobile with a new one which was refused by OP2 and told that cosmetic parts were not covered under warranty as per company terms and conditions and mobile had no manufacturing defects.

The executive of OP2 told if he wants a new mobile had to pay a sum of Rs 8400/-which was refused by the complainant. OP2 also charged a sum of Rs 113/- as inspection charges (Ex CW1/2) when his mobile was under warranty. When OP2 refused to replace the mobile, lodged complaint on customer care centre on 180030002800 and also sent a written note through email, but no reply was ever given by OP1, so filed this complaint and claimed refund of the cost of mobile a sum of Rs 23500/-with compensation of Rs 70,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs 2000/- as litigation charges.

After receiving notices, OP1 submitted joint written statement through authorised representative Ms Meena Boss in reference to board resolution (Ex OPW1/A) and denied all the allegations against them. It was stated that OP1 had given standard warranty with conditions whose copy was annexed here (Ex OPW1/B) where limited warranty terms had been explained clearly. There was no deficiency in their services nor had any manufacturing defect in the said mobile, so this complaint be dismissed based on the law laid down in the Apex court’s judgment in Bharthi Knitting Co. vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier Div of Airfreight Ltd., AIR-1996 SC 2008 where it was stated that terms and conditions of warranty forms contract between OP and complainant and could not be violated. As here in this case, the said mobile had outer fancy lining peeled off which was repaired also, but neither manufacturing defect nor any software defect was seen. Peeling of lining occurred due to bad handling of mobile. Hence, this complaint may be dismissed.

Complainant submitted rejoinder with evidences on affidavit as Ex CW1/1 and Ex CW1/2 where he affirmed on oath that all the contents stated in his complaint were correct and true. Complainant also submitted photographs of his mobile showing peeled off parts as evidence. 

OP1 submitted evidences on affidavit through Md Meena Boss as an authorized representative with OP1. It was affirmed on oath that present complainant was not a genuine consumer as he violated the standard warranty conditions (Ex OPR1/1) by peeling off of cosmetic linings over the body of the mobile which were not covered under limited warranty conditions clause 3 which reads as – “ this warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear or due to misuse ……”

And limited warranty conditions clause 8 which reads as “ there are no express warrantees whether written or oral. In no event shall Sony or its licensors be liable for incidental or consequential damages of any nature whatsoever…..”.

It was also stated that OP has right to charge inspection fee, here it was charged a sum of Rs 113/-as per OP1 warranty conditions stated under Anne. B. So there was no deficiency in their service during warranty tenure and thus this complaint may be dismissed.   

Arguments were heard from both party counsels and after perusal of records on file, order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was seen that the said mobile had developed some fancy outer lining peeling off which was not software problems or a manufacturing defect though it was repaired also. Also no evidence produced by the complainant to prove that his mobile had manufacturing defect.

Thus, we come to the conclusion that complainant could not establish deficiency in services of OP2 or defective product was sold by OP3, so, OPs are discharged from any liability and subsequent this complaint is dismissed without any cost.

 

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR)  and the file be consigned to Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                       Mrs Harpreet Kaur                                                                                 

    Member                                                                                                                         Member                                                                                   

                                                       

                                                            Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                                         President