Phone Damage From Rainwater Not Covered Under Warranty, North East Delhi Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

The North East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) dismissed a complaint against Sony India noting that although the mobile phone was under the warranty, the water damage caused by rain was not covered by the company’s terms and conditions of the warranty. Further, the bench noted that the complainant himself admitted that the mobile handset was damaged due to water exposure during a rain accident. 

Brief Facts: 

Mr Karun Kumar Bheda (“Complainant”) had purchased a Sony Xperia Z1 mobile handset from an authorized dealer of Sony India Pvt. Ltd (“Sony”). The handset cost Rs. 24,000/-. This mobile device came with a one-year warranty that included an accident damage cover. Unfortunately, on 15.06.2015 the mobile handset got damaged due to rainwater, rendering it inoperative. The complainant approached 2 service centres with the damaged handset but both of them failed to repair it. The complainant received no response from Sony despite multiple visits and email communications.

Frustrated by the lack of resolution, the Complainant took legal action by sending a notice to Sony. However, the company denied any liability for the damage. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North East Delhi (“District Commission”). 

Sony argued that the warranty on the mobile handset was valid for one year, and liability was exclusively under the T&C specified in the warranty. The company’s main contention was that the damage sustained by the mobile device resulted from water ingress, a circumstance not covered by the warranty. It further contended that the Complainant had not followed the precautions outlined in the “User Guide” provided with the handset. They emphasized that their product had received certifications for water and dust resistance and that the warranty did not extend to defects arising from dust or water.

Observations by the Commission:

Crucially, the District Commission noted that the Complainant himself had admitted that the mobile handset had been damaged due to water exposure during a rain accident. Furthermore, the District Commission found that the Complainant failed to produce any evidence to counter this admission and prove that the warranty should indeed cover the damage caused by water exposure. The absence of such evidence left the Commission with insufficient grounds to rule in favour of the Complainant.

Consequently, the Commission concluded that there was no deficiency in the service provided by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, decided to dismiss the complaint.

Case: Karun Kumar vs Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 

Case No.: CC/156/17

Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.

Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.

Click Here To Read/Download Order