STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

(1)    Sony India Pvt. Limited, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi – 110044.

(2)      Rai & Sons (Service Center), through its authorized signatory, SCO 60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh. 

(3)      Ambe Electronics Services (Service Center), through its authorized signatory Shop No.14,  Jail Land HUDA, Ambala City, 

 (4)       Anmol Electronics & Watches Pvt. Ltd.(Dealer)  SCO 1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                                     …Appellants

                                         V e r s u s

Aseem Khanna,  House No.121, Sector-C, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt., Tehsil & District Ambala.

                                                                                ...Respondent

 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection       Act, 1986 against   order dated 15.12.2016 passed by                   District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I,                U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.468/2016..

Argued by:    Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

                       Ms.Bharti Khanna, attorney of the respondent.   

 BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.                                                    MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                   Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 have filed this appeal against order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant.

 2.            As per facts of the complaint, complainant purchased a mobile handset from appellant No.4 on 22.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.22890/-. The handset was sold with one year warranty. On 10.5.2016, the respondent/complainant noticed that the mobile handset was not giving proper display.  There was problem of back panel pop-up and less battery back-up.  He went to appellant No.3. He was told to contact Service Centre managed by appellant No.2.  The mobile handset was handed over for repair to appellant No.3 on 21.5.2016. The said  handset was repaired on 31.5.2016 and when respondent/complainant went to collect it, he was told  to pay an amount of Rs.7000/-, despite the handset being within warranty. The said demand was objected.   The mobile handset was not received and as on today, it is in the custody of said appellant/OP.  He took up the matter with appellant No.1. However, he was advised vide letter dated 27.7.2016 to make payment because service of mobile handset was attempted through an unauthorized service agency.  Compelled under the circumstances, respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint.   

3.            Upon notice, a joint reply was filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties. It was specifically stated that the mobile handset was brought in a physically damaged condition.   It was opened in the local market. There were patches on the display screen of the handset, and as per terms and conditions of the warranty, on account of above fact, warranty stood void. Demand of Rs.7000/- for repair was stated to be justified.    

4.              To the reply filed, rejoinder was filed specifically controverting the fact that the mobile handset was attempted for repair through unauthorized service Centre.

               Both parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint on 15.12.2016, granting following relief to the respondent/complainant ;

     [a]  To refund Rs.22,890/- being the invoice price of the Sony Xperia M4 Aqua Dula B mobile handset, and take back the defective mobile handset, from the complainant, if the same is in his possession, at their expenses;

 [b]  Pay Rs.7,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;  

                   [c] Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

                      Compliance of the order, under challenge, was ordered to be made within stipulated period, failing which amount was to entail penal interest. Hence, this appeal.

                     5.                   Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that there was violation of terms and conditions of the warranty. The mobile handset was opened for repair in local market, and as such, the Forum was not justified to give impugned finding.

                    6.                After hearing Counsel for the appellants and representative of respondent/complainant, we are of the view that the argument raised is liable to be rejected. The Forum, when granting relief in favour of the respondent, observed as under;

                       “We have minutely gone through the entire evidence placed before us.  Although, over the Job-Sheet dated 21.05.2016, the Opposite Parties have specifically recorded ‘Warranty Void’ under the column ‘warranty category’, yet they have miserably failed to adduce any such cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence to substantiate their contention that there was an attempted service by the Complainant from some unauthorized agency, rendering the claim of the Complainant fall outside the scope of warranty provided on the product. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in not rectifying the defective mobile handset and demanding money for carrying out the requisite service too when it was within the warranty period, proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Evidently, the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself, but not for lodging the complaint to the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice, in the absence of proper services provided by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4. We feel that only after getting exhausted of remedies available to him, the complainant took a decision for filing the present complaint”.

7.               It was specifically noticed that when defect occurred in the mobile handset, it was under warranty. It was observed that no such document  was placed on record to prove that  the mobile handset was  attempted for service  from the local market. We feel that the finding given is perfectly justified. In the letter dated 27.7.2016 written by appellant No.1 to the respondent, it was also so stated.   It was further stated that to prove the repair having been  attempted in local market, evidence was available with the appellant.  However, when reply was filed,  no such documentary evidence, which was stated to be in possession of appellant No.1 was placed on record. Thus, no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.

8.               For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld.

9                Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

10.              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

28.02.2017