DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ranjana Shahi d/o late Shri R.K. Shahi, resident of House No.3070, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4^th Floor, Dakha House, 18/17, Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005.

2.                 Raj Hans Photo Center, SCO 4, Sector 17E, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, proxy counsel for Sh. Parminder Singh, counsel for complainant

                        OPs already exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Ms. Ranjana Shahi has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following relief :-

i)                   to replace the defective handset with a brand new one or to refund its price alongwith interest

ii)                to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation

iii)              to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 7.4.2012 she purchased a Sony Ericsson Xperia Pro Mobile Hand set (Model No.MK 16i) from opposite party No.2 vide invoice (C-1) for Rs.20,000/-.

According to the complainant, she noticed that the set was having defect of less battery time and hanging.  The complainant visited opposite party No.2 and pointed out the aforesaid defects.  However, the complainant was advised to use the set for some more time but the defects still persisted.

According to the complainant, during the summer vacation in June 20012, when she went out on holiday, she again faced the same problems.  Upon return, she again contacted opposite party No.2 who advised her to visit the Customer care at Sector 47. 

                    In the last week of August 2012 she also noticed a hair-line on the screen of the handset.  On careful examination, she found that there was no scratch and the same emerged from within the screen.  Subsequently, after calling the helpline of Sony Ericsson, the complainant went to the customer care of the opposite party at Sector 34-A, Chandigarh and deposited the handset on 25.9.2012 vide job sheet (C-2).    However, despite numerous visits, the handset has not been repaired which amounts to deficiency in service.

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           Notice was sent for the service of opposite party No.1 through registered AD letter on 5.12.2012.  However, neither the same was received back undelivered nor any acknowledgement was received.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that opposite party No.1 had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 on the date fixed. Hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.1.2013.

4.                           Opposite Party No.2 did not appear despite due service, hence it was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.1.2013.  

5.                           We have heard the learned proxy counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           Annexure C-1 is the invoice vide which the complainant purchased the mobile hand set in question from opposite party No.2 for Rs.20,000/-.  It has been pleaded that the handset did not work properly and gave the problems of less battery time and hanging.  The complainant finally gave the handset to the authorised service station of the opposite party vide service job sheet dated 25.9.2012 (C-2) but the same has not been returned back to her after necessary repairs.  According to the complainant as the handset was lying with the customer care of the opposite party, therefore, she faced a lot of inconvenience.  Hence, vide email dated 25.11.2012 (C-3) she requested the opposite parties to provide her a standby handset failing which she would be constrained to buy a new set. The complainant sent another mail dated 28.12.2012 (C-5) but the opposite parties failed to either repair the handset or provide her the stand by handset.  Ultimately, the complainant purchased another mobile handset vide invoice dated 29.11.2012 (C-6).  In support of her contentions, the complainant has also filed her duly sworn affidavit.

7.                           The opposite parties did not appear to controvert the averments of the complainant.  Therefore, the stand of the complainant goes unrebutted and the opposite parties are proved to be deficient in rendering service.

8.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

(i)                to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- spent by the complainant for the purchase of the mobile set in question which became defective;

(ii)             to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

(iii)           to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.                           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

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

Announced

18.2.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg