BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                        : MEMBER

C.C. No. 39/2015 Filed on 06.02.2015

ORDER DATED: 30.08.2019

Complainant:

Muhammed Shaheer. M, Sumi Nivas, Pallippuram P.O, Kaniyapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.

            (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, II Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Madhura Road, New Delhi.

(By Adv. J.S. Sabu)

2. Sony Centre, QRS Retail Ltd., Sykamore Complex, 1^st Floor, Plamoodu, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

(By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)

3. Prompt Service Centre, T.C 2/2410(2), 1^st Floor, Bethel Towers, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

This case having been heard on 03.07.2019, the Forum on 30.08.2019 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

Complainant’s case is that on 02.08.2014 complainant purchased a Sony mobile model Z 2 from the 2^nd opposite party for a price of Rs. 45,500/-.  On 24.08.2014 complainant noted that the mobile screen is broken when he reached his office and pull out the mobile from his hand bag.  Complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party for repair and 3^rd opposite party told that the mobile is unrepairable and 3^rd opposite party advised that the phone will be replaced with a new one by giving 50% of the value of the new phone.  At the time of purchase the opposite parties never said that the mobile is unrepairable or unserviceable.  Within one month the mobile became useless.  Complainant is ready to pay a reasonable amount for repair, then also 3^rd opposite party is not ready to repair the phone.  Hence complainant approached this Forum for redressal. 

Notice sent to opposite parties 1 to 3.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 appeared and filed version.  3^rd opposite party not turned up and 3^rd opposite party set ex-parte.   As per the version the contention taken by 1^st opposite party is that the 2^nd opposite party is their authorized dealer and 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service centre.  The present reply to the complaint is filed on behalf of opposite parties 1, 2 & 3 by Sony India Pvt. Ltd.  That as per the records of the company the complainant had purchased a Sony Xperia Z 2 model on 02.08.2014.  That the 1^st opposite party provides a warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claim falling outside the scope of the warranty.  The relevant terms of warranty provided by the 1^st opposite party 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 authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein”.  Furthermore clause 3 of the terms of warranty provided by the 1^st opposite party clearly states the following: “This warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal and customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product.  Nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid”.  It is clear that under the terms of warranty the 1^st opposite party is not liable to repair or replace the handset as the product lies outside the scope of warranty.  It is averred that the defect in the handset has arisen due to physical damage.  That from the terms of the warranty it is clear that opposite parties are liable to provide free of cost repair on its products in cases 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 which is beyond the control of the opposite parties.  That the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party on 24.08.2014 with the issue of ‘front panel touch broken’.  However, upon thorough inspection of the handset, it was found that the front panel of the handset was broken, which was duly demonstrated to the complainant by the service officials of 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant took back the handset without depositing it, thus, no job sheet was created.  That the complainant himself has stated in his complaint that he used to carry the handset in his bag.  It is further pertinent to mention here that the defect in the handset has arisen due to negligent handling of the handset by the complainant.  That there was no inherent defect in the subject mobile as alleged.  It is needful to mention that the complainant did not abide the instructions outlined in the user guide due to which his phone got damaged.  That in such circumstances the handset could not be covered under warranty as the same was damaged due to its negligent use by the complainant which is beyond the control of the opposite parties.  Nevertheless, as goodwill gesture towards its customers the opposite parties just to avoid any dispute with the complainant, offered him fresh handset @ 50% price to which the complainant refuted.  This offer of discount was made only in order to maintain customer satisfaction and was not admission of any liability on the part of the opposite parties.  However the said offer was refused by the complainant as he wanted to get it repaired on free of cost basis which is contrary to the terms and conditions of warranty.  The complainant has not annexed an report of an independent expert as defined under Sec. 2(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regard to any alleged defect in the said unit. 

The contention taken by 2^nd opposite party in their version is that it is reiterated that warranty will not extend to external damage (physical damage).  In this case it can be seen that the product has become defective because of the negligent use by the complainant himself.  So no deficiency can be attributable to any of the opposite parties.  It is understood that the product is capable of being repaired.  But the complainant is not willing to spend money for repairs.  Hence the 3^rd opposite party suggested changing the product after adjusting the amount of the defective product.  The complainant was not amenable either for paying the repair charge or for changing the product as suggested by the 3^rd opposite party.  It is the universal business practice that warranty will not extend to external damages.  The opposite parties will be liable if the product has any inherent defect.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party.  It is reiterated that this opposite party is not competent to replace the product.  The product is still capable of being repaired.  However considerable amounts have to be paid for repair.  The complainant, who is not willing to spend money for repair, unnecessarily dragged this opposite party into these proceedings. 

Issues:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant is examined as PW1and Exts. P1 & P2 marked.  PW1 cross examined by 2^nd opposite party.   In cross examination complainant deposed that “ Fsâ tISmb  phone repair sNbvXp X¶nà F¶-XmWv Fsâ ]cm-Xn.  Xm¦-fpsS  phone- sâ front panel touch  BWv s]m«n XIÀ¶Xv (Q) AsX (A) F§-s\-bmWv s]m«n XIÀ¶Xv (Q) Shoulder bag-emWv phone kq£n-¨n-cp-¶-Xv.  Office- F¯n t\m¡n-b-t¸mÄ s]m«n-bn-cn-¡p¶p (A) Phone Fsâ  ssIh-i-¯n-emWv Ft¸mgpw Ccn-¡p-¶Xv (A) Service sN¿m³ Ign-bnà F¶p ]d-ªXv  3^rd opposite party service centre BWv.  Xm¦Ä  QRS- phone hm§nb tijw t]mbn-cpt¶m (Q) t]mbn-cp¶p (A) A§s\ t]mb Imcyw ]cm-Xn-bntem affidavit-tem ]d-bm-Xn-cn-¡m³ F´mWv Imcyw (Q) ]cm-Xn-bn ]d-bm³ hn«p-t]m-b-Xm-Wv.  ]cm-Xn-bn  ]d-bm-¯Xp sIm­mWv affidavit – ]d-bm-¯Xv (A).  Phone hm§p¶ ka-b¯v  phone-\v tISp-]mSp ]än-bm icn-bm¡n Xcm-sa¶v QRS ]d-ªn-cpt¶m (Q) Cà (A).  Service centre F´p ]dªp (Q) phone repair sN¿m³ ]än-Ã.  tISmb phone sImSp¯v H¸w ]pXnb  phone-sâ hne-bpsS  50% IqsS sImSp-¯m asämcp phone Xcm-sa¶p ]dªp(A) phone repair sN¿m³ Ign-bnà F¶-Xn\v F´p tcJ-bmWv Xm¦-fpsS ssIh-i-ap-f-fXv(Q) tcJ-bnà AhÀ X¶n-«nà (A) Xm¦Ä Bhiys¸t«m  (A) Bhiys¸«p (A) Xm¦Ä tcJ Bhiys¸« Imcyw ]cm-Xn-bntem affidavit- tem ]d-bm-Xn-cn-¡m³ F´mWv Imcyw (Q) ]d-bm³ hn«p-t]m-b-Xm-Wv.   (A)”

Perusing the records and evidence it is seen that complainant has not produced any document or evidence to show that he entrusted the mobile with the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party told him that the mobile is unrepairable.  Admittedly the mobile has got physical damage which violates the warranty terms and conditions.  Hence complainant failed to bring out deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and we are of the opinion that the complaint is only to be dismissed. 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of August 2019.    

        Sd/-       

P.SUDHIR                              : PRESIDENT

        Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR  : MEMBER

jb

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Muhammed Shaheer

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of retail invoice dated 02.08.2014

P2     - Copy of warranty certificate

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                                 Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb