Orissa

Rayagada

CC/58/2016

Sunil Kumar Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Mobile World, Rayagada - Opp.Party(s)

Self

05 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,

 

C.C. Case No.58/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B                                     President

                    And

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                               Member

            Sunil Kumar Panda,S/o late Gangadhar Panda,resident of  Kalyani Nivas,Axis Bank Line,New Colony,Rayagada,,      Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.

                                                                                                            …………..Complainant

                                    Vrs.

 

 

1. The Proprietor, Mobile World, Hotel Kapilas Road, Near SBI Bank(ADB)Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., ABI,Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                                                            ………….Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the Complainant:  Sri B.B.Pani & Associate Advocate, Rayagada.

For the  O.Ps: Ms.Shweta Bharati & Associate Advocate, Rayagada.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  is that  the complainant  has purchased a Sony Xperia Z Ultra  Mobile Set from the Opp.Party No.1  on  dt.04/07/2015 with a consideration of Rs.19,800/- with one year warrant. While the complainant  handling the mobile it slipped from his hand and fallen on the water bucket, immediately the complainant took out the mobile  from the water and make  it dry but the said mobile could not work although the company made it  clear  that the mobile is water proof mobile. The complainant over and again went to the OP for repairing   or replace the same with another  one but the OP did not respond to the complainant.  Hence the complainant finding no other option prays before this forum  to direct the O.ps to replace the mobile set  give a new  set    and  award compensation  along with cost  for litigation . Hence this complaint.

                        On being notice, the Opp.Parties appeared through  their Counsel  and files written version denying the allegations on all its material particulars .It is submitted  by the O.Ps  that the complainant  has purchased a Sony Xperia Z Ultra  on 04.07.15  and himself admits that the mobile phone was inadvertently dropped in a bucket  full of water and  for the same he approached the Ops on 09.02.16  after using the said product for 8 months with  an issue related to no power, crack in display and liquid ingression  in the handset.  The engineers at service centre duly examined the set  and found that it was a case of liquid ingression and  hence the handset was dead. The said product is waterproof and protected against dust as along as the customer follow a few simple instructions. Abuse and improper use of device will invalidate warranty. Since it was a case of water ingression , hence the warranty was rendered void, therefore an estimate was given to the complainant abut the complainant refused to pay for the service and  demanded replacement.  The mobile has been misused or mishandled by the complainant’s own act and there were clear sign of external damage due to liquid ingression  for which the complainant was liable. The complainant with a malafide intention approached the Ops repeatedly to harass and waste the time  and then lastly accepted the offer and paid the estimate to the Ops. There is no deficiency in service by the Ops and the complainant has made a case which is completely false and frivolous in nature  and prayed to dismiss the complaint .

                                                                       FINDINGS

                         It is the case of the complainant that the mobile  set was slipped from his hand and fallen on the water bucket and immediately the complainant took out the mobile  from the water and make  it dry but the said mobile could not work although the company made it  clear  that the mobile is water proof mobile. The complainant over and again went to the OP for repairing   or replace the same with another  one but the OP did not respond to the complainant. In reply, the Ops submitted that  no doubt the said product is waterproof and protected against dust as along as the customer follow a few simple instructions but abuse and improper use of device will invalidate warranty and since it was a case of water ingression ,  and hence the warranty was rendered void, therefore an estimate was given to the complainant but the complainant refused to pay for the service and  demanded replacement and then lastly accepted the offer and paid the estimate to the Ops.

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have  violated the warranty condition and failed to give proper service  as per its terms and condition  as laid down in their warranty condition which caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set   which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective when it was slipped  on the water bucket   and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  service during its warranty period and the if  Ops fail to provide proper service as per their warranty condition, then it can be  termed as deficiency in service  on the part of the Ops and  the complainant is entitled to  get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant was found   defective when it was slipped  in a bucket of water from the hand of the complainant and it could not be worked  and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period though the Ops gives warranty that the mobile is a waterproof mobile. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the mobile set  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

                                                                       ORDER

                        The Opp.Parties are  directed to repair the mobile set  free of  cost  within one month, failing which complainant is at liberty to file Criminal Proceeding U/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 for realization  of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs and compensation.                 

                        Pronounced in the open forum today on this 20^th  day of December,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                        A copy of this order  as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parities free of charge.

 

Member                                                                                               President

Documents relief  upon;

For the complainant:

 

1. Copy of Money receipt  No.610 dt.02.05.15

For the Opp.Parties: Nil

 

                                                                                                            President