Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/606

MR DHANRAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY SERVICE CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jan 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

                                                                                                      Date of institution:  02.09.2015 

Complaint Case. No.606/15                                                                                          Date of order: 21.01.2017                

IN  MATTER OF

Mr. Dhanraj, R/o  C-272, JJ Colony, Nangloi, Phase-2, Delhi-110041                                                                                                                                                                                Complainant

VERSUS

Sony Service Center, Office No. 308, 3^rd floor, DDA Building 5, District Center, Janakpuri, Delhi-110058                                                                                                          Opposite party-1

 

Sony India, R/o  A-31, Mohan Co-operative, Industrial Estate, Mathura road, New Delhi-110044                                                                                                                     Opposite party-2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset ‘Sony Xperia Z2’ from Suriya Kiran Electronics for sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- vide invoice no.131844 dated 18.01.2015. The mobile handset developed fault on 09.08.2015 due to rain water despite port caps were closed. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 10.08.2015 for repairs. Where he was told that the warranty has become void due to water ingress and would be repaired on chargeable basis. The opposite parties refused to repair the mobile handset which is within warranty.  Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund  Rs. 35,000/- the cost of mobile handset and  pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-  litigation expenses.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties filed reply while contesting the complaint and asserted that the mobile handset developed fault due to water ingress as admitted by the complainant himself. They further asserted that the warranty of the handset become void as per terms and conditions of the warranty. They asserted that the mobile handset could be repaired on payment. The opposite parties further submitted that the handset was negligently handled by the complainant. But as a  good will gesture the opposites parties offered to exchange the mobile handset of the complainant at 80% of the current maximum retail price of the new model. But the complainant did not approach the opposite parties for exchange. The prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

                When the parties were asked to lead evidence, the complainant filed affidavit dated 02.02.2016 and relied upon copy of invoice dated 18.01.2015,  copy of advertisement and statement of his friend. He has narrated facts of the complaint once again in the affidavit. He deposed that all port caps of mobile handset were closed and were properly covered even then water ingress in the mobile handset.

            The opposite parties filed affidavit of Priyank Chauhan dated 23.06.2016 in support of their case. They filed copy of job sheet dated 10.08.2015, copies of photographs, copy of letter dated 29.10.2015 and copy of terms and conditions of warranty. They in the affidavit once again reiterated the stand taken in their reply and once again prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.    

On perusal of the documents, it reveals that complainant purchased one mobile handset ‘Sony Xperia Z2 ’ from suriya kiran electronics for sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/- vide invoice no. 131844 dated 18.01.2015. The mobile handset developed some fault on 09.08.2015. The complainant contacted opposite party for repairs of mobile handset within warranty but they refused to repair the same on the ground that warranty become void as per terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant also placed on record the advertisement given by the opposite party which reveals that the mobile handset in question is water proof and can also take picture while swimming in fresh water for 30 minutes and can dive up to 1.5m provided all ports and covers are firmly closed.

  We have heard complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite party and  have gone through material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The version and affidavit of the complainant that all ports and covers were firmly closed are supported by the statement of Mr. Rohit which remained unrebutted and unchallenged by the opposite party. Though learned counsel of the opposite party during arguments asserted that the burden of proof that ports were properly closed is on the  complainant. Since the version and affidavit filed by complainant have remained unrebutted. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve version of the complainant. Hence the complainant has been able to show that he purchased one mobile handset ‘Sony Xperia Z2’ from Suriya Kiran Electronics for sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/- vide invoice no. 131844 dated 18.01.2015. The mobile handset developed some fault on 09.08.2015. The complainant contacted opposite party no.1 for repairs of mobile handset within warranty but they refused to repair the same on the ground that warranty has become void under the terms and condition of the warranty. The complainant has been able to show that the opposite parties has adopted unfair trade practice. Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. They jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service and negligence. 

In light of above discussion and observations, the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000 /- cost of mobile handset with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization of the amount. We further award compensation of Rs.1000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and for loss of use of mobile handset for almost one year and litigation expenses. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.

Order pronounced on : 21.01.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                    (URMILA GUPTA)                                        (R.S.  BAGRI)

   MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT