DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 16/10/2019
CC/226/2019
Hassankuty P T, - Complainant
S/o.Moideenkutty,
Pourathodiyil House, Vattathani,
Thrithala P.O 679 534.
(By Advs. K Dhananjayan &
P T Shahul Hameed)
Vs
Proprietor - Opposite Party
Royal Fons,
Mobile Phones & Accessories
Main Road, Pattambi,
Palakkad 679 303.
(By Adv.G.Abhilash).
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the opposite party’s shop on 20.11.2018 on payment of Rs.11,990/- On 10.08.2019, the phone became non functioning due to hanging and he entrusted the phone with the opposite party for repairing it on 13.08.2019. They promised to repair it as it was within the warranty period. More over at the time of purchase itself they told the complainant that they will repair the phone, if any defect occurs and he need not go to the service centre for that. But on 10.09.2019 they returned the phone stating that there is water inside the phone and it cannot be repaired under warranty and he has to pay for the repair. This is a clear Deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is facing too much difficulties without the phone and he is unable to purchase a new one. So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to pay Rs.11,990/- being the cost of the phone and Rs. 20,000/- as the compensation for the time loss other inconveniences suffered by the complainant.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3. The pleadings of the opposite party in their version is as follows.
The opposite party admits that the complainant purchased a mobile phone from their shop on 20.11.2018 and paid Rs.11,990/-. But they did not make any promise to repair it as alleged in the complaint. The complainant’s phone is manufactured by ‘Vivo’ and the complaint without arraying the manufacturer and service centre as opposite parties is bad non-joinder of necessary parties.
Warranty and guarantee of the phone is provided by the manufacturer and any repairing has to be done through their authorized service centre. In order to maintain the customer relationship and to help the complainant, this opposite party entrusted the phone with the authorized service centre of ‘Vivo’ and they informed the complainant that it cannot be repaired under warranty as there is liquid presence inside it. It is as per the terms & conditions of the warranty and this opposite party is not responsible for that and there is no Deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and this complaint has to be dismissed with compensatory cost of this opposite party.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get his phone repaired under
warranty?
3. Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
5. Reliefs, if any.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext A1 and A2 marked. Opposite party also filed proof affidavit in evidence and Ext B1 marked from their part.
Point No.1
6. The opposite party, dealer of the phone contended in their version that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the manufacturer of the phone ‘Vivo’ and their authorized service centre are not made parties. They further contended that the guarantee and warranty is provided by the manufacturer and any defect in the phone is to be repaired through the authorized service centre of the company and so they have to be made parties for the fair disposal of the complaint.
Even though the manufacturer and service centre are necessary, parties and they are to be impleaded for the fair disposal of the complaint, complainant is the sole authority to decide as to whom are to be made parties. We have only to see the Deficiency in service if any on the part of the party arrayed as the opposite party. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2
7. The complainant purchased the phone from the opposite party on 20.11.2018 on payment of Rs.11,990/- which is clear from the Tax invoice, Ext A1. The complainant’s grievance is that he approached the opposite party with the problem of hanging of the phone on 13.08.2019 and they promised to repair it, but returned it after one month without repair. The opposite party told him it could not be repaired free of cost as there is liquid presence inside it and it can be repaired on a chargeable basis only.
The opposite party also admits the contention of the complainant and stated that they have entrusted the phone with the authorized service centre of Vivo and the service centre after inspection informed the presence of liquid inside the phone and demanded payment for repair which was not acceptable to the complainant and for that opposite party cannot be held responsible.
From the pleadings, it is clear that the phone which was purchased on 20.11.2018 became non functioning on 13.08.2019. The complainant has not produced the warranty card issued by the manufacturer at the time of purchase.
Ext A1 in its reverse, states the precaution & conditions to be taken care by the customers. In that it is clearly stated that the opposite party is only dealer and for any repair/service of the product, the customer has to contact their authorized service centre. All assistances needed for that purpose can be availed through the dealer. Further any repair/replacement has to be effected only through the authorized service centers and dealer cannot do anything for that purpose. Water entry and physical damage are excluded from warranty. In that case, warranty benefit is not available.
Ext.B1 job sheet issued by Haijin Trade India Pvt Ltd, the service centre in shows the Remarks column “Customer cannot power on (Liquid damage in hand set) Data loss approved. Engineer checked the hand set Issue found on display. But customer not approved estimated cost. So job cancel”.
No objection was raised by the complainant in marking Ext.B1. As per the service centre’s report, the phone is having liquid presence inside and it cannot be repaired under warranty.
The only contention of the complainant is that notwithstanding the damage being one arising out of liquid damage, rights conferred as per warranty condition would survive. We cannot concur with this claim of the complainant. The complainant is bound by the Terms & Conditions of the warranty document and he is not entitled to free service. Point no.2 is accordingly answered.
Points 3 to 5
As per the Terms & conditions, the opposite party has stated that any repair/replacement has to be done through the authorized service centre and any assistance can be availed from them for that purpose. Accordingly the opposite party, dealer entrusted the complainant’s mobile phone with the service centre for repair. So there is no Deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of August, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member.
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1–Original invoice No 582 dated 20.11.2018 issued by Royal fons, Pattambi.
Ext. A2–Original receipts no 198 dated 13.08.2019 issued by Royal fons,Pattambi.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties:
Ext.B1-Service job sheet dated 16.08.19 issued by Haijin Trade India Pvt Ltd, Service centre
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: NIL.
