Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/1168

Manjunatha M H - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Sony India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 23.06.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 30.01.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1168/2015

DATED THIS THE 30^TH JANUARY OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Manjunatha.M.H,

#54, Shanthi Gruha,

1^st main road,

(Old Binni Mill Road), Ganganagar Extension,

Bengaluru-32.

 

Inperson     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. The Managing Director,

Sony India Pvt. ltd.,

Reg. Office: Sony India (P) ltd., A031, Mohan Co-op Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044.

 

2. The Manager,

Benchmark Infotech,

no.5, 10^th cross,

CBI Road, Ganganagar, Bengaluru-24.

 

3. The Manager,

Rohan Electronics,

LIG.123, Hudco,

Panchamanthara Road,

Near JSS Law college,

Jayanagar First Stage, Kuvempunagar,

Mysuru-570023

 

4. The Manager,

Manyavar’s Best Buy

#104, Rashinkar Plaza,

D.Devaraj Urs road,

Mysuru-570001.

 

By Adv.Sri.Vinay Hegde

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1 to 4 (herein after referred as Op.no.1 to 4 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to pay Rs.28,500/- towards the cost of mobile along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of payment. Further direct to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service and supplying defect quality mobile and cost of transport & miscellaneous charges of Rs.10,000/-.            

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that he has purchased the mobile phone Xperia-ZR, C5502, water proof phone (hereinafter referred as the said phone) on 13.07.13 from the Op.no.4/dealer. It is the case of the Complainant that, until 2 months, the said phone was in good condition. After that, he faced too many problems and he visited the Sony service centers many times. Since the phone is a water proof, he has used it in swimming pool to take a picture, but the water went inside the phone screen area and then he gave it to a service center in Mysuru (Kuvempunagar). He got the refurbished mobile from the service center almost after 1 month. After that, he had faced lot of problems and he had been to service centers many times. The Complainant further submitted that later after sometimes the said phone’s screen got broken and he gave that to Op.no.3. Since the phone is a water proof, they have not repaired it and they asked me to pay 50% of the original price to get it replaced. Unfortunately he had no other option and he paid Rs.13,995/- to get the new phone with new 1 year warrantee period. One more time he gave it to service after 2 months due to heating, WIFI/internet related problems.  The Complainant further submitted that in the month of December 2014, one more time he gave the phone to Op.no.2. It got replaced one more time with the refurbished one due to following problems in the phone, hanging, mal function in ear speaker, showing headphone connected always, hangs while receiving, proximity sensor not working etc., Again after 4 months, he faced the same above mentioned problems and now they are not ready to repair or to give the replacement since the warranty period expired on 03.03.15. Now Ops are asking Rs.18,392/- to replace the phone for this simple problem and he is not ready to pay this amount. Hence prays to allow the complaint for the deficiency of service on the part of Ops and supplying defect quality mobile to him. 

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Ops did appear before this forum and Op.no.1 filed version on his behalf and also on behalf of other Ops.  The sum and substance of the contention taken by Ops are that, it admits in respect of purchase of the said mobile phone by the Complainant. It is specifically stated in its version that, strict instructions were given in the warranty card that ‘how to use the said mobile phone’. The Op further submitted that “this warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal and customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product. Nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid. Another specific contention of Ops are that the relevant portion of the User Guide which facilitate the user as to how to use the said mobile phone reads thus:

“Never submerge the device, the micro USB port, the micro SD card, the micro SIM card or the headset connector in water, expose the device to any liquid chemicals or expose our device to moist environments with extreme high or low temperatures. If water or liquid gets on the micro USB port, the micro SD card the micro SIM card and the headset connector, wipe it off with a dry cloth. The water resistance of the micro USB port, the micro SD card the micro SIM card and the headset connector is not guaranteed in all environments or conditions.

If water gets on the speaker, dry the speaker for approximately three hours before using it again.

All compatible accessories, including batteries, chargers, hands free devices, micro USB cables, micro SIM cards and micro SD cards are not dust and water resistant on their own.

Your warranty does not cover damage or defects caused by abuse or improper use of your device. If you have any further questions about the use of your products, refer to our customer support service for help.

IP (Ingress Protection) rating

Your device has an IP rating, which means it has undergone certified tests to measure its resistance levels to both dust and water. The first digit in the two digit IP rating indicates the level of protection against solid objects, including dust. The second digit indicates how resistant the device is to water. The higher the numbers, the higher the respective protection.

The IP ratings of your device are IPX5, IPX7 and IP5X. This means that your device is dust protected and is protected against the effects of immersion and low pressure water stream. So you can use the device in extreme weather conditions, for example, when it’s snowing or raining, or when humidity levels are high. You can also use the device in dusty or sandy environments and when your fingers are wet”.

 

Referring to this submits that there is no any deficiency of service much less the manufacturing defect on the part of Ops. Anyhow as a goodwill, Ops have heed the request of the Complainant and did the needful to the maximum extent, whenever he brought the said phone on 02.05.14, 02.01.15, 07.01.15 & 28.02.15. To maintain the goodwill, Ops have given an offer to the Complainant with a new handset of the same make on an offer price of Rs.18,392/- to which he did not agree. When there is no deficiency of service, the Complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and though produced documents A1 to A11 not marked, but any how reliance is placed on the said documents. The authorized signatory of Op.no.1 filed affidavit evidence and none of the documents got marked. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the case of the parties to the lis. Ongoing through para 3 of the complaint, Complainant himself stated that “since the phone is a water proof, he has used it in swimming pool to take a picture, but the water went inside the phone screen area and then he gave it to a service center in Mysuru (Kuvempunagar).” If the said admission of the Complainant in the complaint, read with “User Guide & IP (Ingress Protection) rating,” it goes to show that the Complainant ought not to have use the said phone in the swimming pool as the said “IP (Ingress Protection) rating” clearly states that “the second digit indicates how resistant the device is to water. The higher the numbers, the higher the respective protection. The IP ratings of your device are IPX5, IPX7 and IP5X. This means that your device is dust protected and is protected against the effects of immersion and low pressure water stream. So you can use the device in extreme weather conditions, for example, when it’s snowing or raining, or when humidity levels are high. You can also use the device in dusty or sandy environments and when your fingers are wet”. In the instant case, as we already stated above, the Complainant has used the said phone in the swimming pool to take picture which is totally contrary to the User Guide of the Ops. Under such circumstances, we do not find any manufacturing defect. When there is no manufacturing defect, the question of deficiency of service does not arise. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

 

          8. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed devoid of any merits.

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we directed both the parties to bear their own cost.   

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 30^th January 2018).

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Manjunatha.M.H, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Letter dtd.30.05.15
Ex-A2	Email communications
Ex-A3	Communication letter
Ex-A4	Cash bill dtd.13.07.13 Rs.29,900/-
Ex-A5	Tax invoice dtd.03.03.14 Rs.13,995/-
Ex-A6	Service job sheet dtd.28.05.15
Ex-A7	Retail invoice dtd.10.06.15
Ex-A8 to A10	Service job sheet dtd.07.01.15, 02.01.15, 30.12.14
Ex-A11	Retail invoice dtd.02.05.14

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Priyank Chauhan, who being the authorized signatory of Op.no.1 was examined.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

-NIL-

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT