O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone make SONY D 5322 XPERIA –Z C6602 (BLACK) for a sum of Rs.32,500/- from OP-1 on 30.12.2013. It is alleged that after one and half month the above said mobile phone did not work properly. Complainant handed over the Cell phone to the OP-2 for repair on 21.2.2014. It is alleged that when the complainant handed over the aforesaid Cell phone to OP-2, he told that the Cell Phone will be replaced and a new phone will be given to the complainant after seeing the condition of the Cell phone. It is alleged that after some time, the complainant contacted to OP-2 to know the condition of the Cell phone, but no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant. It is clear that there is a manufacturing defect in the handset. It is alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 23.4.2014. On these facts complainant filed the complaint on 21.5.2014 praying that OPs be directed to repair the Cell phone free of cost or to replace it with a new set or pay the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs.32,500/-, and Rs.10,000/- towards humiliation, mental agony, business loss and inconvenience and also Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. OPs appeared and filed their written statement. In its written statement OPs have not disputed that complainant purchased a mobile phone of SONY D 5322 XPERIA –Z C6602 (BLACK) for a sum of Rs.32,500/- from OP-1 on 30.12.2013. It is stated that the complainant purchased a sealed mobile handset in an absolutely good condition. The same has been damaged by the complainant due to external impact. Thus, rendering the warranty of the handset as inapplicable. In case an external impact which damages the device is not covered by warranty terms and conditions. Therefore, repair or exchange of the phone shall only be on chargeable basis and warranty is void on a damaged device. It is stated that the products of the OP-3 are put through several quality checks before they are released in the market and do not suffer from manufacturing defects, thus all allegations in the complaint are absolutely baseless. It is also stated that the damage has been caused due to external impact caused by the complainant himself. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence reiterating all the facts made in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. Priyank Chauhan, Authorised Representative of OPs has filed affidavit alongwith documents in support of its case.
4. We have considered pleadings and have heard parties. The perusal of the service jobsheet with ticket id No.14022101903 dated 21.2.2014 states that mobile handset was under warranty. This service jobsheet was issued by OP-2 after physical verification of mobile handset. The another service jobsheet with ticket id No.14022101894 dated 21.2.2014 bears an endorsement at the bottom “mobile handset is rejected from HO due to customer usage issue not covered under ADP support, if customer is ready to replace mobile handset to pay 50% of MRP cost” this endorsement is signed by the official of Service Centre on 15.4.2014. Both the service jobsheet referred above show the mobile handset as dead, from these jobsheets it appears that there was defect in the mobile handset, otherwise, the OPs would not have offered to replace the mobile handset on payment of 50% of the MRP cost. Neither the complainant nor the OPs have placed on record any technical report in support of defects in the mobile handset.
5. From the above facts and circumstances we find that the mobile handset within the purchase of about one and half month became defunct and the complainant was unable to enjoy its services. It is not the case of OPs that the mobile handset was repaired and delivered to the complainant which means that the same is still lying with them. Therefore in our view the OPs have sold a defective mobile handset to the complainant. Accordingly OPs are directed to refund the cost of mobile handset i.e. Rs.32,500/- to the complainant
6. Complainant is further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment which amount shall also include cost of litigation. This amount shall be payable within 45 days from the date of order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% till its realization. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 21st day of December, 2015.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
