STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Mahavir Singh aged 41 years son of Sh. Phoolu Ram Resident of House No.1165/A, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh   

…..Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Sony India Private Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
2. M/s Bhagwati Mobile, Palika Bazaar, Fatehabad, Haryana (Dealer).
3. Techno Care, SCO No.129-129, 1st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh- 160022 (Service Centre).

                …..Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                 MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Advocate for the appellant.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.05.2016 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondent), as under:-

“8. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to hand over the mobile phone after making it fully functional by replacing the defective parts, if any, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty manual and to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment and litigation expenses.

 9.  This order be complied with by the OPs, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment.”

2. The facts in brief, are that, complainant purchased a  Sony Xperia Model D-2212 from Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice dated 06.12.2014 for Rs.12,500/- (Annexure P-1) having warranty of one year
   (Annexure P-2).   It was stated that from the very beginning, the complainant started facing problems of Auto off/power switched off and volume key/speaker and, therefore, he handed over the same with Opposite Party No.3 on 17.06.2015 (Annexure P-3) and the same was delivered to him, vide Annexure P-4, after updating the software and replacing the side key FPC and loudspeaker.  It was further stated that, the mobile handset, in question, again started giving the same problems and, therefore, he approached the Opposite Parties, who gave assurance to him, to use the same for another 10-15 days, and if the defect continued in that case, they would refund/replace the mobile phone. It was further stated that as the mobile phone used to switch off automatically and power key stopped working, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 vide job sheet dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) and the same was delivered after repairs to him, vide Annexure P-6, with the assurance that this time, the mobile phone would not give any problem.  It was further stated that after 2-3 days, the mobile phone started giving more problems i.e. hanging, not able to make and receive calls, wi-fi and internet problem, auto touch, SIM, downloading problems and as such, he deposited the same with the Opposite Party No.3 on 21.10.2015, vide Annexure P-7, but, the defect could not be rectified those being not repairable. It was further stated that the official of Opposite Party No.3 told him that they were unable to repair/remove the defect those being defects of manufacturing.
3. It was further stated that the complainant visited Opposite Party No.2, to replace the handset, or to refund its price, but to no effect. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed directing the Opposite Parties, to pay the amount of Rs.12,500/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of purchase till actual payment; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.
4. The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and admitting the factual matrix of case, that as per record, the phone, in question, had been purchased. It was stated that after enjoying the handset for more than 6 months, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties on 17.06.2015 raising an issue with the loudspeaker. It was further stated that, the condition of the mobile phone was scratchy and colour of the same was also faded. It was further stated that they instead of going for any repair, carried out necessary replacement of side keys & loudspeaker and delivered the same, to the complainant, in working condition.  It was further stated that the complainant again approached them raising similar issue of side keys, and considering him to be a valued customer, they carried out the necessary replacement of the part, and delivered the handset, in proper working condition. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties on 21.10.2015, just after 45 days, before the expiry of the warranty period, raising some hanging issue. It was further stated that, on inspection, the handset was found to be in working condition, and no trouble was found, and accordingly, vide letter dated 21.12.2015, he was informed to collect the handset, but, he did not do so, and rather he filed the present complaint. It was further stated that, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The complainant, filed rejoinder, to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, with a prayer to replace the mobile handset of same brand and features with fresh warranty of one year or refund the cost of handset with interest @12% per annum from the date of purchase and also enhance the cost of compensation and litigation.
9.  We have heard the Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the Appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11. After going through the record of the case, we observed that the appellant has failed to place on record any cogent and authentic documentary evidence, in the form of expert opinion, to show that the mobile phone, in question, is suffering from any inherent/manufacturing defect. Moreover, the law on the point is well-settled that if the defects can be set right by repair/replacement of the parts, there is no need to replace the machine, as a whole. In the instant case, the respondents have fully diagnosed the mobile handset and carried out the needful repairs by necessary replacement of the parts. As such, we are of the considered opinion in that, the appellant’s plea of asking for replacement of the mobile set along with a fresh warranty of one year or refund the cost of the handset with interest
    @ 12% per annum, from the date of purchase, and also compensation and litigation cannot be acceded to, since the lower Forum had already partly allowed the complaint and the respondents have been directed to handover the mobile set, after making it fully functional, by replacing the defective parts, and also pay a compensation of Rs.7500/-, which to us, appears to be commensurate with the harassment, the appellant faced. Accordingly the said appeal is dismissed.
12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14.  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15.  Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

14.07.2016

                                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

                  [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                                                                                           Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

GP

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.200 of 2016)

(Mahavir Singh. Vs. M/s Sony India Private Ltd. & Anr.)

Argued by:

Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Advocate for the appellant.

Dated the 14^th  day of July 2016

ORDER

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost and the order passed by the District Forum, has been upheld.

Sd/-                               Sd/-                                    Sd/-