Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/338/2016

Lajpat Rai Khera - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Singh Soundh

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/338/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	13/05/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	07/09/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Lajpat Rai Khera, aged 57 years, R/o House No.1324-A, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

VERSUS

 

(1)  M/s Sony India Pvt. Limited, Mohan Cooperative Industry Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, through its Auth. Signatory/ Manager/ Director.

 

(2)  M/s Sales-22, SCO 1122, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Auth. Signatory.

 

(3)  M/s Techno Care, SCO 128-129, 1^st Floor, Sec.34-A, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/ Auth. Signatory.

 

(4)  M/s Run Service Infocare Pvt. Limited, SCO 60, 2^nd Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For Opposite Parties	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased one Sony Xperia M-4 Aqua mobile handset on 09.11.2015, from Opposite Party No.2, for Rs.16,800/-. After some days, the Complainant experienced heating problem in the said handset and accordingly, on the advice of the Opposite Party No.2, he deposited the handset with Opposite Party No.3 vide job-sheet dated 13.02.2016. However, Opposite Party No.3 failed to get the issue resolved and directed the Complainant to approach Opposite Party No.2 for its replacement. On approaching Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant was directed to contact Opposite Party No.4 – another Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1. On 16.02.2016, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.4, who after examining the handset, updated the software and changed some parts and returned the same on 18.02.2016. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.4 on 12.04.2016 with the same problem. After retaining the mobile handset for some day, Opposite Party No.4 returned the same stating that the said phone cannot be repaired. Thereafter, the Complainant constantly followed up the matter with the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

 

3.      Complainant led evidence.

 

4.      We have heard the Complainant in person and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.   

 

5.      It is evident that the Complainant bought one Sony Xperia M-4 Aqua mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2 on 09.11.2015 for Rs.16,800/- vide bill Annexure C-1. Annexure C-2 is the job-sheet dated 13.2.2016 with problem of heating and non-charging of the product in question issued by Opposite Party No.3. Further, Annexure C-3 is one another job-sheet dated 18.02.2016 issued by Opposite Party No.4 with same issue of heating problem vide which some parts of the handset were replaced. Again, Annexure C-4 was issued by Opposite Party No.4 itself on 14.4.2016 with fault of hanging and heating.

 

6.      The sole grouse of the Complainant is that despite the handset being repaired so many times within the warranty period, specifically with the same problem of heating, the Complainant is still facing the same problem and Opposite Party No.4 has refused to repair the handset stating that the same cannot be repaired.
7.      The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is proved.

 

8.      Furthermore, the act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for selling a poor quality product which could not work properly even after spending a huge amount of Rs.16,800/- and later non-rectification of the fault reported despite replacement of various parts and later refusal for the requisite repairs tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

9.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]  To refund Rs.16,800/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the Mobile handset. 

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[C] To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation;

 

10.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. The Complainant shall return the Mobile handset in question to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 after the compliance of the order.

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07^th September, 2016                                     Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                                   Sd/-

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER   

Sd/-

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”                                                                           MEMBER