Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/5/2015

Mashwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	5/2015
Date of Institution	:	02.01.2015
Date of Decision	:	29/07/2015

                                                

                                                         

 

Mashwinder Singh son of Late S.Jaswant Singh r/o House No.1683, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       Sony India through its Managing Director Regd. Office: A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

         

          Sony India Branch Offices:

          3^rd Floor, Adarsh Mall, Plot No.50, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-2, Chandigarh-160002.

 

2.       Bansal Enterprises through its Partner/Proprietor SCO No.1014, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Rai & Sons through its Partner/Proprietor SCO No.60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                   Sh.Rajesh Gaur, Counsel for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased a mobile phone make Xperia L colour white Model C-2104 from OP No.2  vide Invoice dated 26.06.2013 for Rs.16,300/-, having one year warranty.   Soon after its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem of hanging up. He approached OP No.3 to get the same rectified who told him that the problem was due to  old software and, therefore, he got installed the new software from it. It has been averred that he did not remember the date, month when the new software was got installed as the invoice was misplaced but the same was in the record of OP No.3. According to the complainant, even after the installation of the new software, the hanging up problem in the mobile phone was not rectified. In June, 2014, the flash of the mobile phone stopped working and as such he approached OP No.3 for the rectification of the problem of hanging up and the flesh.  It has further been averred that instead of rectifying the problem in the mobile phone free of cost, OP No.3 raised the estimate of Rs.4850/- despite the fact that the same was covered under the warranty period.  The mobile phone was deposited with OP No.3 on 14.06.2014 and the same was returned on 16.06.2014 without repairs. According to the complainant, OP No.3 refused to rectify the mobile phone without payment.  It has been averred that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile phone in question. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           The OPs filed their joint written statement. The OPs have admitted the facts with regard to the purchase of the mobile in question. However, it has been stated that OP No.3 cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty terms.    It has further been stated that as per Clause 3 of the terms of the warranty, any failure in the product arising out of damage caused by physical impact would render the normal warranty void.  It has further been stated that on inspection of the mobile handset by the engineers of the OPs, the same was found to be physically damaged due to external impact. The flash LED and the shield was found to be broken/cut and, therefore, the warranty become void, the mobile handset cannot be repaired free of costs.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.           We have heard the complainant, in person,  Counsel for the OPs and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice vide which the complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the job sheet dated 14.06.2014 whereby the complainant handed over the mobile phone to OP No.3 for its repairs. The perusal of the job sheet clearly reveals that under the column warranty category, it was mentioned “warranty void” and under the column of condition of the mobile set, it was mentioned “subject to check”.  Moreover, on inspection of the mobile handset by the Engineers of the OPs, the same was found to be physically damaged due to external impact as the flash LED and the shield were found to be broken/cut.   Therefore, the warranty became void as provided in the terms of the warranty and no repairs could be carried out free of costs.  The OPs was, thus, right in preparing the estimate of Rs.4244.68, Annexure C-3 towards the repairs of the mobile handset in question.  Moreover, the complainant has not been able to draw our attention to any clause as per which the OPs were still liable to repair the handset, free of costs. Thus, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. 
6.           For the reasons stated above, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
7.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29/07/2015                                                                                        Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER