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

₌₌₌

Divyajyoti Mehra d/o Dr.Vikas Mehra r/o H.No.1501, Sector 33, Chandigarh

    ---Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1.  Sony Ericson c/o Tarvo Technologies Ltd., SCO 2473-74, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through Incharge/Manager-Sony Ericson.

2.  Chawla Brothers, SCO 1035, Sector 22-B (Opp. Bus Stand), Chandigarh through Owner(s)/Propietor.

                 ---Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.P.D.GOEL,                    PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL,            MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Harmanjit Singh Sethi, Counsel for complainant.

        OPs exparte.

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

­        Concisely put, the complainant purchased a mobile make Sony X Peria Model x 10 bearing IMI No.359419037975959 vide bill No.5449 dated 31.07.2010 for Rs.28000/- (Annexure P-1) from OP-2. According to the complainant, soon after its purchase, it started giving problems, so he approached OP-2 who after making some adjustments returned the same. Thereafter, the complainant went to Jodhpur  The complainant averred that after few days, the mobile phone stopped working. OP-2 refused to replace the defective mobile despite the fact that the same was suffering from manufacturing defect. On 20.12.2010, the complainant along wither her father went to Branch Office of OP-1. It was found that the battery and headphone were defective.  The mobile phone also suffered from hardware and software  problems. Consequently, the battery, mother board and software were replaced vide jobcard No.SE310RTC17785 dated 20.11.2010. After two days, the mobile set again started giving problems and the same was kept by OP-1 vide job order dated 22.12.2010 with a view to send the same to the head office for rectification of the problems.

         According to the complainant, the said mobile set was not returned by OPs despite her repeated requests and ultimately, she served a legal notice dated 07.0.2011 (Annexure P-4). According to the complainant in response to the said legal notice, her father went to collect the  mobile phone from the OP but they wanted her father to sign job card containing his satisfaction note to which he refused. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.       OP No.1 initially appeared but subsequently, it absented and hence, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.09.2011.  OP-2 did not appear despite due service as such it was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.08.2011.

3.       The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.

5.       The averments made in the complaint, as reproduced above in para No.1 of the order, stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant, as well as the Annexures C-1 to C-4.  Annexure C-1 is the copy of the bill dated 31.07.2010. From this document, it is proved that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.28000/- from OP-2.  Annexures C-2 and C-3 are the copies of the job cards, which show that battery, mother board and software of the mobile phone in question were replaced. Annexure C-4 is the copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the OP requiring to refund its price but all in vain.

6.       Otherwise also, the allegations made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and un-controverted as nobody appeared on behalf of the OPs to contest the case. Non-refund of the price of the mobile handset in question despite the fact that the mobile phone is not working properly despite repeated repairs amounts to gross deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. 

7.       As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.28000/- being the price of the mobile set to the complainant. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation.  

8.       This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay total amount of Rs.33000/- along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint i.e. 27.07.2011 till its realization besides Rs.2500/- as litigation costs.

9.       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.