DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.575 of 01-12-2011
Decided on 18-04-2012
Manav Garg alias Abhinav Garg S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Garg S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar, aged
about 22 years, R/o 3236-D, Sector 51-D, Chandigarh, now R/o Gali No.10/2, Guru
Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
M/s Sony Ericsson Standard Teletronics, Showroom No.1049, Sector 22-B,
Chandigarh, through its Prop./Partner.
Neuron Compuers (Service Centre), Hanuman Chowk, G.T.Road, Bathinda, through
its Partner/Prop./Manager/Incharge
.
Sony Ericsson, Regd. Office: Essar House, 11 KK Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034,
India, through its Managing Director/Chairman/ Director. ......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Ish Kumar, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Lalit Garg, counsel for opposite party No.2
Opposite party Nos.1&3 ex-parte
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that on the assurance of the opposite party No.1, the complainant purchased one Sony Ericson Mobile Handset bearing IMEI No.01238300-374709-0 for a sum of Rs.7,400/- in case from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by the opposite party No.3 vide bill No.24038 dated 17.02.2011 with one year warranty. At the time of selling the above said mobile handset, the opposite party No.1 also assured that in case, any defect occurs in the said mobile handset, it will get the same removed free of cost and in case of any manufacturing defect, the opposite party No.1 will get it replaced with new one. But the opposite party No.1 has not issued any warranty card to the complainant on the ground that the warranty is online. The complainant has alleged that in the month of September, 2011, there occurred some defects in the said mobile handset as the said mobile handset suddenly became dead and there is also listening problem (whenever complainant dialed any number, there was no sound to know whether the bell is going on or not). The complainant along with his father namely Rajesh Kumar visited the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 after inspecting the mobile handset, found the reported defect and prepared the Job Sheet No.63 dated 14.09.2011 and advised the complainant to get his repaired mobile handset after a week. Thereafter, the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 to get his repaired mobile handset back but the opposite party No.2 postponed the matter for further period of one week. The complainant again visited the opposite party No.2 but again with the same result. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to replace the said mobile handset with new one but on this, the opposite party No.2 misbehaved with him and his father and conveyed them either to approach the opposite party No.1 or to opposite party No.3 and also refused to get the said mobile handset set-right and to replace the same with new one. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 with a request either to get the said mobile handset repaired or to replace the same with new one but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to refund the price of the above said mobile handset i.e. Rs.7,400/- along with interest, cost, compensation and any other additional and alternative relief.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this Forum, has filed its written statement and admitted that one Rajesh Kumar had approached the opposite party No.2 on 14.09.2011, complaining about the defect in the mobile handset in question. The opposite party No.2 disclosed that the said mobile handset will be set right and issued a service job sheet and also asked to collect the same within a week. The said mobile handset was duly repaired and set right but the complainant or his father never came to collect the same from the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 is ready to hand over the same to the complainant in working condition. The mobile handset in question is in OK condition but the complainant has not been intentionally collecting the same.
3. The opposite party Nos.1&3 despite service of notices/ summon, have failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party Nos.1&3.
4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. The above said Sony Ericsson mobile handset so purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 on 17.02.2011 vide bill No.24038 for a sum of Rs.7,400/-, became defective in the month of September, 2011 as the said mobile handset was “dead” and there was listening problem (whenever complainant dialed any number, there was no sound to know whether the bell is going on or not). The complainant along with his father visited the opposite party No.2 who after inspecting the said mobile handset, found the reported defect and prepared the Job Sheet No.63 dated 14.09.2011 and advised him to get his repaired mobile handset after a week. When, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for taking back the mobile handset, the opposite party No.2 postponed the matter for further one week. After repeatedly visiting the opposite party No.2, the complainant requested it to replace the said mobile handset with new one. The opposite party No.2 asked him to approach either to the opposite party No.1 or to opposite party No.3 for the needful but the opposite party Nos.1&3 refused to get the said mobile handset set right and replace with new one.
7. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that one Rajesh Kumar approached the opposite party No.2 on 14.09.2011, complaining about the defect in the said mobile handset. The opposite party No.2 issued a job sheet to this effect and the complainant was asked to collect the same within week. The said mobile handset was duly repaired and set right but the complainant or his father never came to collect the same from the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 is ready to hand over the same to the complainant in working condition as the said mobile handset is in OK condition but the complainant has not been intentionally collecting the same.
8. The complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question on 17.02.2011 and the problem occurred in the said mobile handset after 9 months i.e. on 14.09.2011. The opposite party No.2 has issued the job sheet Ex.C-2. In this job sheet, the fault is indicated as 'dead, no listening sound, required testing.'
9. The complainant was asked to collect the said mobile handset after 7 days but when he approached to collect the same, the matter was postponed for further next one week. When the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it again postponed the matter.
10. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that it has rectified the defect in the mobile handset in question but the complainant has not come to collect the same from it.
11. The complainant has prayed for refund of the said mobile handset i.e. Rs.7,400/- as it was within warranty but he has nowhere mentioned in his complaint that there is any manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset or has not placed on file any expert evidence to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the same. Moreover, he has used the said mobile handset without complaining any defect in it for approximately 9 months. The mobile handset is repaired by the opposite party No.2 and is ready for delivery. Further, on the job sheet, it has been specifically mentioned, “The material should be collected within 30 days of promise date, after that Neuron Computers will not be responsible for any loss or damage.”
On this job sheet, it has not been mentioned that the complainant was asked to come after 7 days rather the validity of this job sheet is 30 days, meaning thereby that he can collect his mobile handset in question within 30 days from the issuance of the job sheet. The complainant has himself placed on file the job sheet meaning thereby that he was well conversant with the terms mentioned on the job sheet.
12. Therefore, keeping in view facts & circumstances and evidence placed on file, this complaint is partly accepted against the opposite party Nos.2&3 with Rs.1,000/- as cost and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 is directed to handover the said mobile handset after fully repairing it free of cost with 6 months extended warranty and after getting the satisfaction note duly signed from the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
18-04-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) (Amarjeet Paul)
Member Member
