Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member

1.       Gokul Ramanujam has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that   mother of the complainant purchased mobile phone brand Sony Xperia Z5 manufactured by opposite party No.1 vide Invoice No. S35IE7/15-16/317 dated 24.12.2015 for a sum of Rs. 47694/- from opposite party No.3 . After using the aforesaid handset for some time, the complainant noticed that body of the handset started heating extra ordinarily  and thereafter the handset stopped working. Thereafter the complainant contacted the representative of opposite party No.1   on telephone  from where complainant was instructed to approach the service centre of opposite party No.1 and at that time complainant was issued service ID No. 16052702418 through SMS. The complainant then approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 and handed over the handset to opposite party No.2 and the complainant received job card No. W116052702418. Opposite party No.2 told the complainant that minimum 15 days are required for the repair of the mobile handset  and the complainant can enquire about the set after 15 days. After 15 days, complainant approached opposite party No.2  and at that time opposite party No.2 told the complainant that if the comdplainant wants to get the mobile set repaired, he has to deposit Rs. 36000/- as the moisture has entered into the phone and this defect is not covered under warranty. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 that the said phone is water proof and is of dust tight design  and as such if the moisture enters the handset that means there is manufacturing defect in the handset  and it is the duty of the company either to repair or replace the handset within warranty period. It is  necessary to mention over here that the outer condition of the handset is OK and there is no type of any wear and tear  or damage in the outer body of the handset .  But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and refused to repair the hand set without charging Rs. 36000/-, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs  vide instant complaint:-

(i)      Opposite parties  No.1 & 2 be directed to replace the handset or refund the amount of Rs. 47,694/-;

 (ii)    Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/-  alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 20000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared and filed a joint written version in which it was submitted  that as per the records of the company the complainant purchased one Sony Xperia Z5 Gold/E6683 with IMEI No. 352189071775964 on 24.12.2015 from opposite party No.3 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications alongwith the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the aforesaid mobile. Opposite party No.1 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase. Opposite parties have also provided User Guide alongwith the handset which mentions the precautions one should take while using the phone and if a person does not comply with the same then opposite party No.3 is not liable for any damage/defect in the product. It was submitted that after enjoying the said handset for 5 months, the complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 27.5.2016 raising an issue of No power in the mobile handset which issue was duly attended  by opposite party No.2. Upon inspection it was observed by opposite party No.2 that the handset got damaged due to liquid ingression. It was submitted that opposite party No.2 observed that there were water entered the handset through open ports. It was further observed that there was no inherent defect in the said handset as the WRT (Water Resistance Test) was also passed which establishes the fact that there was no inherent defect in the handset.  The liquid entered the handset through open ports/ports not tightly closed. Moreover, due to rough usage of the handset some very minor cracks developed in the handset which gave passage to the liquid to entered inside the handset. Due to the abovesaid reasons the warranty with respect to the said handset stood void and therefore, an estimated cost of repair was shared  with the complainant. However, the same was rejected by the complainant. The complainant refused to go for any chargeable repair action. Hence, the said handset was returned back to the complainant. Since the damage occurred due to the negligence of the complainant. It was submitted that in case wherein the handset gets damaged due to the customer own fault, in such circumstances the warranty terms stands void. In the present case the aforesaid mobile handset got damaged due to liquid ingression .  It was further submitted that the compatible accessories including batteries, hands free devices, charger, micro USB cables, micro cables, micro SD cards and other internal parts are not dust and water resistant. If in case water ingresses the mobile handset on account of some open ports or due to some crack on the mobile handset, in that case the warranty terms stands void. It was clearly mentioned in the warranty terms that the same stands void if the handset  gets liquid damage due to the complainant’s fault. However, in the present case the ports were open and not tightly closed due to which the liquid entered inside the handset, thereby damaging the said hand together. It was submitted that there was no inherent defect in the mobile handset.  The complainant has failed to establish that there was any inherent defect in the mobile handset. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case Sh.G.S. Sandhu,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of the print outs of SMS Ex.C-3, copy of downloaded printout from website of the opposite party Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.S.K.Sharma,Adv.counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Meena Bose Ex.OP1,2,3/1, copy of letter Ex.OP1,2,3/2, copy of resolution Ex.OP1,2,3/3, copy of retail invoice Ex.OP1,2,3/4, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP1,2,3/5, copy of the snapshots Ex.OP1,2,3/6 & Ex.OP1,2,3/7, affidavit of Sh.Gurwinder Singh Ex.OP1,2,3/8 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1,2 & 3.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that mother of the complainant purchased mobile Sony Xperia Z5 manufactured by opposite party No.1 from opposite party No.3  vide Invoice No. S35IE7/15-16/317 dated 24.12.2015 for Rs. 47694/- for the personal use of her son i.e. complainant  . The complainant has alleged that the body of the handset started heating extra ordinarily and the handset stopped working. The complainant contacted the representative  opposite party No.1 on the telephone, who instructed the complainant to approach the service centre of opposite party No.1  and issued service ID No. 16052702418  through SMS. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 and handed over the defected handset  to opposite party No.2, who issued job sheet No. W116052702418 through  SMS and told the complainant to come after 15 days. The complainant after passage of time, approached opposite party No.2  and at that time opposite party No.2 told the complainant that if the complainant wants to get the set repaired, the complainant has to deposits Rs. 36000/- as the moisture has entered into the phone  and this defect is not covered under warranty. The complainant requested the opposite party that the said phone is water proof  and is of dust tight design as per companies configurations and as such if the moistures enters the handset that means there is manufacturing defect in the handset and it is the duty of the company either to repair or replace the handset during  warranty period . But however, the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and refused to repair the handset without charging Rs. 36000/-. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

7.       Case of the opposite party is that the complainant purchased the Sony Xperia Z5 Gold/E6683 with IMEI No. 352189071775964 on 24.12.2015after detailed demonstration of the features, functions etc to the satisfaction of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 provides a warranty of one year on its products including handset of the complainant in question. Relevant terms of warranty provided by opposite party No.2 to the complainant is as follows:-

“Subject to the conditions of this Limited Warranty,Sony warrants this product to be free from defects in design, material and workmanship at the time of original purchase by a Consumer, and for a subsequent period of one (1) year, which is the Warranty period....”......
“If, during the Warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship, the Sony Mobile authorized distributors or service parters will, at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein.”

8.       The complainant was also provided with user guide alongwith the handset which mentions the precautions one should take while using the phone and if a person does not comply with the same then the opposite party is not liable for any damage/defect occurred in the product.. It has been mentioned in the user book that the product is water resistant/water proof, however if water or liquid gets on the micro USB port , the micro SD card , the micro SIM card and the handset connector , wipe it off with a dry cloth. Water resistance of the micro USB port, the micro SD card, the micro SIM card and handset connector is not guaranteed in all environments or conditions. If the water gets on the speaker, dry the speaker for approximately three hours before using it again. The warranty does not cover damage or defects caused by abuse or improper use of the device by the consumer. The handset of the complainant became dead due to ingress of liquor as a result of which the handset became dead. So as per the terms of warranty opposite parties are not liable to repair or replace the handset. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.       From the entire above discussion and from the perusal of the documents produced on record particularly the document Ex.C-4 of handset Sony Xperia i.e. handset which was purchased by the complainant for Rs. 47694/- vide invoice exbt.C-2, it is clear that mobile handset purchased by the complainant is a water proof and dust tight designs as it does not need a rain coat. Rain happens. So do drops in the sink and knocked over drinks. Xperia Z5 Dual has sony’s leading water proof design and an IP68 rating. Because a little water should never ruin the day. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the handset became dead and the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for its repair. But opposite parties refused to repair the same on the ground that due to ingress of liquor in the handset, the handset has become dead which is not covered under the terms of warranty. This plea of the opposite party is totally against the terms mentioned in the brochure as well as in the demonstration of this handset given by the opposite party to the general public in which it has been clearly mentioned that this set can even be used in sink as little water never ruin  the handset. So it is totally water proof /water resistant, so if the water/liquor has entered into the handset as a result of which the handset has become defective, this is all due to manufacturing defect in the handset which is also against the advertisement as well as terms of the warranty of the handset in question. As the mobile handset became defect during the warranty period, as such opposite party cannot demand any amount for the repair of the same. So the opposite party is liable to repair the handset of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant free of costs and in case the mobile handset found irreparable , the opposite parties are liable to replace the handset with new one of same make or model.

10.     Resultantly the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are  directed to repair the  handset of the complainant free of costs to the satisfaction of the complainant and in case the handset is found irreparable , the opposite parties are liable to replace the mobile handset with new one of same make and model or to refund the amount i.e. cost price of the handset Rs. 47694/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. 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.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 28.4.2017