Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/558

Priyanka Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony Mobile Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Kumar

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block,  Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                    

     Date of institution        : 26.08.14

 

Complaint Case No.558-14                                                   Date of order        : 15.11.16

In the matter of :

 

 Ms. Priyanka Yadav

D/o Mr. Shri Bhagwan Ydav

32/7 Saraswati  Kunj

Roshan Garden Near Pump House

Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043

 

                                                                                                              …Complainant

Vs.

 

Sony Mobile Service Centre

Service Point

7A/F-19, DDA building

First Floor, District Centre

Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058                                                            OP-1

 

 

M/s Rahul Electronics

F-12, Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001                                                                                               OP-2

 

Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

A-31,Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate

Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044                                                    OP-3

 

-1-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT)

O R D E R     

 

Briefly case of the complainant as stated is that She purchased a Sony mobile handset Model No. C-1504 on 21.07.13 on payment of Rs9,000/- vide invoice no28979 dt21.07.13 from OP-2 for sale consideration of Rs9,000/-.

            The OP-2 gave oral warranty for one year. The mobile handset developed fault within few days and was delivered to OP-1 service centre for repairs. They failed to repair the Mobile handset. The OPs also failed to replace the mobile handset or refund of cost thereof. Hence, the present Complaint for directions to OPs to repair the mobile handset free of cost or replace or refund along with compensation of Rs80,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs11,000/- .

After notice OPs filed reply while raising preliminary objections of concealment of material and true facts, complaint is false and frivolous and the complainant violated terms and conditions of warranty by breaking seal and damage to the hand set and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

            However, on merits purchase of the handset by complainant and delivery of handset to OPs for repair is admitted but asserted that the complainant got the handset opened in open market from unauthorised person which resulted into damage of the seal and component of the handset. Hence, violated terms and conditions of the warranty and the OPs are not liable either to repair or replace the mobile handset and pay any compensation to the complainant. They once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

When the parties were asked to lead evidence, complainant submitted affidavit dated 02.03.15 wherein she once again narrated the facts of the complaint.

 

-2-

 

 

 The complainant in support of her version also relied upon photocopies of invoice no. 28979 dt21.07.13 and job sheet no.W114053100102dt31.05.14. The OPs filed conditions of warranty and coloured photographs of the damage occurred along with the affidavit.                   

We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The complainant herself has placed on record job sheet no W114053100102 dt31.05.14 signed by her. Wherein it is specifically mentioned ”Warranty Void“. The OPs have placed on record photographs of the mobile handset and its components. From the perusal of the photographs it reveals that the seal of the mobile handset was broken and the component was damaged at the time of delivery of the handset to OP-1. Therefore the complainant violated clauses No 5 and 7 of the conditions of the warranty.

                        Therefore, the mobile handset was not in warranty at the time of delivery of mobile handset to OP-1 for repairs, and the OPs are not bound by the warranty and are not liable either to repair or replace or refund cost of mobile handset and pay any compensation.

            In the light of above discussion and observations there is no merit in the complaint. The same fails and is here by dismissed.    

 

Order pronounced on   :

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

                                   

 

 

(URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

    MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

 

-3-