Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/713

Manmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony - Opp.Party(s)

13 Oct 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

                                                                                                                         Date of institution30.10.14       

Complaint Case. No.713 /14                                                                                                     Date of order:    13.10.16                 

In the Matter of

 

Manmeet Singh Mehta,

1^st Floor, FA-33,

Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi-27,                                                                                   COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Sony Consumer Care,

A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Etate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi-44.                                                                                                             OPPOSITE PARTY-1

 

Sony Service Point,

7A/F19, D.D.A. Building,

District Center, Janak Puri,

New Delhi.                                                                                                                  OPPOSITE PARTY-2

ORDER

R.S.BAGRI, PRESIDENT

            Brief facts as stated by the complainant are that he purchased one mobile handset Sony Xperia L C2104 IMEI No.356605053551095 from Sheeba Tell Pvt. Ltd., C-7 Fateh Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi-18 on 1.10.13 for sale consideration of Rs.15400/-with one year warranty.  The mobile handset developed some fault on 31.5.14 and was given to Sony Service Point, Opposite Party-2 for repairs within warranty. The Opposite Party told that there was no hardware damage in the mobile handset.  Again on 14.9.14 the mobile handset developed fault and was given for repairs to Opposite Party-2 within warranty. The Opposite Party told the complainant that power IC was damaged and the same is not covered under warranty of the mobile handset.  There was no external damage.   The Opposite Party-2 charged Rs.100/- and issued job sheet No.W114091506416.   On 17.9.14 Opposite Party-1 telephonically told the

2

complainant that  Rs.4500/- would be charged for repairs of the handset.  On 24.9.14 the complainant collected the mobile handset without repairs.  Hence, the present complaint  for direction to the Opposite Party to replace the handset and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain, agony  and harassment and   Rs.2,000/- for litigation expenses. 

 

            Notice of the complaint  sent to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties appeared and  filed reply while contesting the complaint  and taking preliminary objections that the complaint is false, and without any cause of action  against the Opposite Parties.   On merits they asserted that the handset was out of warranty due to external damage caused to the handset.   They further submitted that the damage was caused due to mishandling of the handset by the complainant and estimate of sum of Rs.4500/- was given to the complainant for repairs of handset. Which was not accepted by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Parties       reiterating his stand taken in the complaint and controverting the stand taken by the Opposite Parties in their reply.  

            The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.  The complaiant filed affidavit dated 20.11.15 wherein he once again reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and prayed for directions to the Opposite Parties to replace handset and pay compensation.  The complainant in support  of his case filed copy of invoice dated 12.10.13, job sheet dated 15.9.14, copy of bill dated 15.9.14 copy of photographs  of mobile handet and copies of e-mails. 

 

            It is worth mentioning here that the Opposite Parties were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.3.16.  The evidence filed by the Opposite Party on 11.8.16 was placed on record as they were already proceeded ex-parte and cannot be looked into.   

            We have heard complainant in person and gone through the record carefully and thoroughly.   Except the affidavit of the complainant there is nothing on record to prove that the mobile handset was internally damaged by the Opposite Parties.  The complainant is unable to show that the mobile handset was  covered under the warranty clause.  Whereas there is sufficient material on record

 

 

3

which show that when the handset was deposited for repairs with Opposite Party-2 there was external damage and  the warranty clause was not applicable.   It is worthwhile to reproduce the terms and conditions of warranty clause given in the job sheet  which states as under:

 

“4.       In the event of any internal physical damage and and/or damage caused by ingress of any liquid which is not visible to the naked eye during receipt of the set, the customer will be informed of such finding before proceeding with the repairs.”  

 

            Therefore, the allegations of the complainant that the mobile handset was damaged by the Opposite Parties is without corroboration from any document the complainant  has failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.  Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint.  The complaint is  hereby dismissed.  

 

Order pronounced on :13.10.16

• 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