By.Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
On 23.02.2018 the Complainant purchased a Sony Xperia XZs mobile phone through Flipkart online service from third Opposite Party for Rs.29,990/- as per invoice No. FAAA2U1800646048. The first Opposite Party is the authorized service centre and second Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the said mobile phone. The second Opposite Party had advertised in Medias and made the Complainant believe that this mobile is the best among the available mobiles and if any complaints occur, the same would be repaired then and there without any delay. The Opposite Parties had given one year warranty for the said phone and also assured that the display panel of it is unbreakable. But, during November 2018, the Complainant noticed one crack on the display of the set and so, he reported the defect to the first Opposite Party. The first Opposite Party assured that the mobile set will be replaced within one month after getting confirmation from second Opposite Party. Thereafter, though the Complainant approached the first Opposite Party on several occasions to get a new set, the first and second Opposite Parties have not replaced the defective set till date which caused heavy inconveniences to the Complainant. Therefore the first Opposite Party being the authorised service centre and second Opposite Party being the manufacturer of the said mobile set are jointly and severally liable to replace the mobile set within a reasonable time. Hence, this complaint to get Rs.29,990/- as the cost of the mobile set with interest from the date of purchase till the date of payment and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and cost.
3. The first and second Opposite Parties filed version together which in brief is as follows:
They admitted that the Complainant had purchased a mobile set manufactured by the second Opposite Party from the third Opposite Party through online. But the Complainant has not given any complaint or produced the mobile set before the first Opposite Party, the authorized service centre of second Opposite Party. The second Opposite Party provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. He has not furnished any job sheet or service history to show that he had approached any of the service centres of the second Opposite Party for the service of his mobile. Even though, they tried to track in their Record Management System to see the service history of this mobile, they could not find any such service history. So, the Complainant has not approached any of the service centres of second Opposite Party. If there is any defect in the handset the Complainant would have surely contacted these Opposite Parties for getting the issues resolved. Therefore the Complainant has directly filed this complaint without approaching any of the service centres of second Opposite Party. So also, the Complainant has filed this complaint almost after the expiry of warranty period. So in the absence of any strong proof, the complaint cannot be entertained. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The third Opposite Party filed version which in brief is as follows:-
This Opposite Party is a dealer who is carrying the business of sale of goods manufactured or produced by others. This Opposite Party is a registered seller on the website ‘flipkart.com’ and sells products of other manufacturers, traders etc under their respective trade mark through the website. So if there is any manufacturing defects to the product, they are not liable to replace it. The Opposite Party has acquired good market reputation for its range of products offered and for its exceptional customer support. This complaint is false, frivolous, and vexatious and liable to be dismissed.
5. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of
Opposite Parties?.
2. Reliefs and Costs.
6. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, PW2 Ext.A1 to A3 series and MO1 from the side of Complainant. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of Opposite Parties. Heard both sides.
7.Point No.1:- The specific case of the Complainant is that MO1 mobile set has been purchased from the third Opposite Party though Flipkart. Admittedly the second Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the said mobile set and first Opposite Party is it’s service centre. The grievance of the Complainant is that within the warranty period, he saw a scratch on the display of the set and even though, he approached the first Opposite Party, they have not replaced the mobile set as agreed by first and second Opposite Parties. Admittedly, the Complainant purchased MO1 from third Opposite Party though Flipkart. Ext.A1 is the Voucher and Ext.A2 is the important information related to this phone which contains the terms and conditions of the warranty. According to third Opposite Party, they are only a dealer of the said mobile set and since, the allegation of the Complainant is related to a manufacturing defect, they cannot be held liable. On the other hand, the first and second Opposite Parties took a contention that without approaching any of the service centres, the Complainant directly filed this complaint before this Commission. According to them, if the Complainant approached any of their service centres, there may be a job card or work sheet. According to them, even though they searched for job card or work sheet in their record management system, they failed to find out those. So, they strongly contented that the Complainant had not approached their service centre for replacing the MO1, and so, there is no deficiency on their service as contented by the Complainant. They further contented that the Complainant filed this complaint after the warranty period. Admittedly one year warranty is there. The Complainant had purchased the mobile set on 23.02.2018 and he approached before this court on 20.02.2019 that is within one year. The allegation of the Complainant is that he approached the first Opposite Party in the month of November 2018. So, if there was an approach from the Complainant to get replacement of the mobile, definitely, it is within time.
8. The counsel for the first and second Opposite Parties contented that to get the warranty benefit, there must be an enquiry from the Complainant to any of the service centres of second Opposite Party and there must be a complaint from him about the defects. Ext.A2 is the important information related to this phone. It contains the warranty conditions. Ext.A2 shows that the warranty is valid only if the original proof of purchase for this product issued by a Sony authorized dealer specifying the date of purchase and serial number is presented with the product to be repaired or replaced. As we already stated, the specific stand taken by the first and second Opposite Parties is that the Complainant never approached any of the service centres for getting the warranty benefit. The first and second Opposite Parties contented that if the Complainant approached any of their service centres, there must be a job card or work sheet with the Complainant. But the Complainant has not produced either job card or work sheet. PW1 is the Complainant. PW2 is his wife. PW2 claims that she is dealing with this mobile and when the defect noted, she sent a mail to first Opposite Party for getting it replaced. Ext.A3 series are the computer prints of the alleged mail. But, it can be seen that the invoice number of the mobile phone noted in Ext.A3 series is different from the number stated in the complaint. So, it cannot be held that this mail is related to MO1. Moreover, Ext.A3 series do not show that PW2 sent this message to the service centre for informing the alleged defect of MO1. Therefore, here, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the Complainant approached first Opposite Party, the service centre to inform about the defect of the MO1, mobile set. Since there is no evidence to show that the Complainant approached the service centre to replace the mobile phone, it cannot be held that there is deficiency in service upon first and second Opposite Parties. Since, the third Opposite Party is only a dealer, nothing is brought to prove that there is deficiency in their service. So, the Complainant failed to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Thus point No.1 is answered against the Complainant.
9. Point No.2: Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs. Return MO1 to PW1 after the appeal period.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 16th day of September 2022.
Date of Filing:-20.02.2019.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Anil. O. K. Advocate.
PW2. C. K. Mercy. Advocate.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice. Dt:23.02.2018.
A2. Important Information and Warranty Details.
A3(a). Printout of Gmail page.
A3(b). Printout of Gmail page.
MO1. Sony Xperia XZs Mobile Phone.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
