DATE OF FILING : 25/07/2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 22nd  day of February  2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 205/2016

Between

Complainant : James Jacob, S/o Jacob,

                                                           Residing at Kalluvechel House,

                                                           Thekkumbhagom P.O., Thodupuzha,

                                                           Working at St.Sebastian's UP School,

                                                           Thodupuzha, Idukki. 

(By Adv:  Anju K.Surendran)

And

Opposite Party                             : 1 . Sony India Pvt. Ltd, 

                                                               Represented by its Manager, Consumer Care Cell,

                                                               Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, 

                                                               Mohan Co-Operative Industrial  Estate,

                                                               Mathura Road, New Delhi, 110 044 (India)

                                                         2 . Madonna Care Center,

                                                             “D No.26/306-D1,

                                                              Building, Vengalloor, Thodupuzha,

                                                              Idukki District – 685 608.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

Complainant  purchased a Sony Eperia Z Ultra mobile phone manufactured by the second opposite party through their online site seller Flipkart on 20/07/15 by paying Rs.13,990/-. Within two weeks of purchase of this mobile phone, the complaint noticed that, its side panel came off and immediately he approached the first opposite party, the authorised service centre of the second opposite party and intimated the matter.  At that time, they said that, if the damaged phone entrusts them, it will take two months time for curing the defect, and they further opined that this problem will not cause  any  defect in using the phone.  While so, when the complainant tried to

 

                                                                                                                            (Cont....2)

-2-

switch on the phone after his duty time, he found that the phone is dead, and  immediately he entrusted the phone to the second opposite party and at that time the second opposite party said that they will send the phone to their Chennai office for curing the defect, and only the Chennai office is consider the warranty claim.  After 2 weeks the first opposite party contacted the complainant, and said that the defect caused to the phone is a physical damage and normally, warranty do not apply.  They further informed that either the customer can avail a fresh hand set by paying 80% of its market value or he purchase a refab hand set by paying 50% of its market value.  Thereafter the manager of the first opposite party  directed the complainant to pay 6000/- to the service centre. When the complainant approached the first opposite party, they demanded the full payment of Rs.12,000/- and directed him to remit it on the same day, complainant further averred that, there is no chance of any physical damage to the mobile phone in question, and the complainant demanded his phone back.  Then the manager of the second opposite party return the phone to the complainant.  Actually the manager formerly stated that, they sent the phone to their Chennai office.  From the act of the second opposite party, complainant came to know that the opposite party has not send the phone to their Chennai office, and without conducting a proper inspection to reveal the actual damage, the first opposite party assessed that the defect of the phone  is a physical damage.  When the complainant contacted the second opposite party's Regional Office, they informed  that the first opposite party in their job card written a physical damage hence the complainant is not entitled to set any benefit under warranty.

 

Complainant further averred that, there is no chance of occurring any physical damage to his phone, and the opinion of the first opposite party is only to cause damage to the complainant and intended to deny the warranty of the phone.  Alleging deficiency in the act of the opposite parties 1 and 2, the complainant  approached this Forum and filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to return the purchase price of the mobile phone along with cost and compensation.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version the first opposite party contented that they functions  on  the  basis  of  manufactur's  terms and conditions and as per that

                                                                                                                           (Cont....3)

-3-

the defect observed was a physical damage nature for which normal warranty do not apply.  On the request of the complainant the first opposite party sent a defect report to the second opposite party for due consideration.  In reply the second opposite party stated their inability to absorb 100% warranty coverage due to physical damage and came back with two options ie, either the customer can avail a fresh hand set @ 80% of the cost or a refab hand set @ 50% of cost.  The customer initially accepted for a fresh hand set, but before fulfilling the formalities, he demanded to return the defective hand set and collected the same from the first opposite party stating he is not interested the offer.  The customer complaint was well attended by the opposite party within proper care and attention, since they are only the service agent of the  first opposite party, they function under their standard service operating procedures with 100% attention and care.  Hence no deficiency in service is happened on the part of this opposite parties, and the  opposite parties are liable to be exempted from further proceedings.

 

In their reply version the second opposite party contented that the complainant approached the first opposite party for the first time after 8 months of the purchase of the mobile hand set ie, on 15/03/16.   After examination by the service engineer of the opposite party, it was found that the said hand set was physically damaged due to external cause which was due to complainant's own misuse and hence warranty was rendered void and the opposite parties are willing to repair it, but the same would be done on payment of charges.  Opposite parties also offered the refurbished hand set @ 50% current MRP of the said product or the fresh hand set at  80% of its MRP.  But  the complainant did not accept the offers and rejected the same, insisting on free of cost service, which was out of question as per the warranty policy.  The second opposite party further contented that they always keeps their customers at a very huge pedestal and the complainant was offered best services.  Hence the complainant deserves dismissal on the ground alone.

 

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 marked.  Ext.P1 is the invoice dated 20/07/15, Ext.P2 is the Box of the phone, Ext.P3 is the service job sheet dated 15/03/16, Ext.P4 is the warranty card.

 

From the defence side  no oral or documentary evidence is  produced.

                                                                                                                            (Cont....4)

-4-

Heard both sides,

 

The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

 

The Point:-   It is an admitted  fact that the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia Z Ultra bearing Model No.C6802, having IMEI No.357656054090731 mobile hand set on 20/07/15.  Immediately after the purchase, the complainant approached the second opposite party, the authorised service agent of the first opposite party, and informed the matter of side panel came off and No power.  As per the version of the complainant, he approached opposite parties on the first time in the month of September 2015 itself and at that time the second opposite party said that there is a minor defect and it will not cause any problem to the functioning of the hand set.  Further they advised the complainant to produced the hand set before the expiry of warranty.  But as per record, it is seen that the complainant entrusted mobile hand set to the opposite parties on 15/03/16, within 8 months of its a purchase, as admitted by the opposite parties 1 and 2.  On  examination the service engineer found that the non-functioning of the mobile was due to physical damage due to external cause which was due to complainant's own misuse and hence warranty was rendered by the first opposite party is void.  While on entrusting the phone to the second opposite party in a fully dead stage the second opposite party opened a job card which is marked as Ext.P3.  On perusing the Exhibits.  It is seen that, condition of the set,  “Damaged.  Volume Buttom side damage and charging cap lose some  scratches.  Warranty Void.”  No where stated that the damage caused to the hand set is due to the misuse and  mishandling of the hand set.  Except this job card no specific evidence is produced by the opposite parties to convince the Forum that, what is the actual reason of the damage caused to the hand set whether these defect  can be cured permanently.  Even though opposite parties 1 and 2 filed detailed reply version, no corresponding evidence  is produced either verbally or documentary.  It is also admitted that these defect was occurred to the hand set in question is within the period of one year.  Instead of curing the defect of the hand set, opposite parties offered to replace it with a new one for its 80% cost, or refab hand set for it 50% cost.  No contention raised by both the parties  that, the  defect  of  the  hand  set  can  be  curable.  In  this  matter  on

                                                                                                                        (Cont....5)

-5-

evaluating the evidence on record Forum found that, the second opposite party flatly denied the replacement or repairing of the defective set on some flimsy grounds.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 miserably failed to furnish a valid ground for the denial the legal right of the complainant.  This act of the opposite parties is a gross deficiency in their service. 

 

Hence on the basis of above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, the complainant  established his version with clear and cogent evidence, and the opposite parties miserably failed to produce any concrete evidence to shaken the allegation of the complainant against them.

 

Under the above circumstances, the complaint allowed.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to replace the subject matter Mobile Phone with a new one or else they are directed to pay its purchase price, as per Ext.P1 to the complainant.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as the litigation cost, jointly to the complainant.  The above direction shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order,  failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of February, 2019.

 

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                         SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                                                       

                                                                                      SMT.ASAMOL P.  (MEMBER)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                           (Cont....6)

-6-

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               - James K.Jacob

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            - The invoice dated 20/07/15

Ext.P2            - The Box of the phone

Ext.P3          - The service job sheet dated 15/03/16

Ext.P4          - The warranty card

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

  Forwarded by Order,

 

 

        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT