Delhi

East Delhi

CC/624/2014

SACHIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.624/14

•  

R/O CHANDU PARK, KRISHNA NAGAR

DELHI-                                                                                                            ….Complainant

•  

1. NEW STAR COMMUNICATION,

103/3, GURDWARA DERA BABA KARAM SINGH SAHIB,

RASHID MARKET,

PATPARGANG ROAD,

1.  

 

2.  IMMORTAL SERVICE

1/15, 1^ST FLOOR, LALITA PARK, OPP. METRO PILLAR NO.26,

NEAR LALITA PARK GURUDWARA,

LAXMI NAGAR

1.  

 

3. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

PLOT NO. A-31, I AREA,

MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE IND. ESTATE,

MATHURA ROAD OKHLA PHASE ii

OKHLA IND. AREA,

NEW DELHI-110020                                                                                    ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 10.07.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 13.11.2017

Judgment Passed on: 30.11.2017

CORUM:

Shri SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

ORDER BY:  HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

 

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Sachin, against  New Star Communication (OP-1), Immortal service (OP-2), and Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) with the allegations of deficiency in services.

The facts of the present complaint are that on12/07/2013 the complainant purchased Sony Mobile Model No. Sony Xperia C-6603 from OP-1 vide invoice no. 2941 for Rs.35,000/-. It is stated that on the very first day there was problem with the volume key, display and power key. The complainant visited OP-2, the authorized service centre for which job sheet bearing no. W114070200623 was issued on 02/07/2014. The complainant was asked to collect the repaired handset after 3 days but OP refused to hand over the repaired handset. Hence, the present complaint for seeking direction to OPs to refund the cost of the handset, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony and rS.15,000/- as cost of litigation.

Complainant has annexed invoice dated 12/07/2013, Job sheet dated 02/07/2014 with the complainant.

Reply was filed by OPs, where they took several pleas in their defence such as “the mobile phone of the complainant was damaged by the complainant himself due to “water ingress”, that OP-3 provides warranty of one year on its products from the date of original purchase and liability was strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions; that OP-3 also provides “User Guide” which mentions precautions to be taken while using the phone. Clause-3 of the warranty terms and conditions was also reproduced stating that as the handset was found damaged due to external cause of liquid ingression thus it could not be repaired within warranty terms and conditions. It was further stated that the complaints were duly & promptly attended and he was informed that the warranty on the handset had become void due to liquid ingression, which was clearly mentioned on the jobsheet.

Hence, no deficiency in services could be attributed on part of OP. it was stated that not only grievance of the complainant was redressed but he was also given offer vide letter dated 11/08/2014.

Board resolution is annexed as Annexure A, Terms of warranty as Annexure B, Letter to Complainant dated 11/08/2014 as Annexure C and photographs of handset Annexure D.

In Rejoinder to written statement filed by the complainant, the contents of the written statement were denied and those of the complaint were reiterated.

Complainant examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint, he has stated that he had visited the service centre where he was informed that the handset was dead and it could not be repaired.

Sh. Priyank Chauhan, authorized representative of OP-3 and duly authorized on behalf of OP-1 & OP-2 to depose on their behalf, was examined on behalf of OPs and has got exhibited Board resolution and authority letters in his favour as Ex. OPW1/1 (colly), copy of warranty terms and conditions as Ex.OPw1/2, user guide as Ex.OPW1/3, Job sheet as Es. OPW1/4. It has been reiterated that due to liquid ingression the hand set could not be repaired under warranty as the warranty had become void and Letter dated 11/08/2014 as Ex. OPW1/5.

We have heard the argument on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the compaliannt and OP and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has stated that soon after purchase there was problem in the handset, which he had purchased on 12/07/2013, he has relied on job sheet dated 02/07/2014, which is almost 10 days before the expiry of warranty period and we take a look at job sheet, it has been stated in column corresponding to the condition of the set as “Scratched (Liquid Ingression). Thus, when there was liquid ingression, the warranty on handset became void due to violation of warranty terms and conditions, when the handset was out of warranty, OPs were not liable to rap air the same. Thus, no deficiency can be attributed to OPs. However, OPs have placed on record and have got exhibited letter dated 11/08/2014 as Ex. OPW1/5 where as good will gesture they have (offered to exchange the faulty handset at 80% cost of new model i.e. 20% discount on MRP) with normal full one year warranty. The complainant is at liberty to accept the offer proposed by OP.

Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits, without order to cost.

 Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 

DR P.N.TIWARI                                                                               HARPREET KAUR CHARYA                              

    MEMBER                                                                                                     MEMBER      

 

 

SUKHDEV SINGH

PRESIDENT