Delhi

New Delhi

CC/349/2015

DEEPAK JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA PVT . LTD - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

 

                    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                    (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                       NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./349/2015                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Deepak Jain,

S/o Sh. N.K. Jain,

410/2, Ganesh Nagar-II,

Shakarpur, New  Delhi-110092.

                …… Complainant

 

Versus

1. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

 

2. SONY ERCISSON SERVICE CENTRE,

1/15, 1^ST Floor, Near Lalita Park,

Gurudwara Sahib,

OPp. Metro Pillar No.26,

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.

 

3. SHIVAM COMMUNICATION,

Through its Prop.

At R-22, Shop No.3, Kaneja Complex,

Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.

                ……. Opposite parties

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

       

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone M2 Dual bearing IMEI No.35277406-692717-3 and 35277406-692718-1 from  OP-3 on 8-02-2015 by paying a sum of Rs.21,900/-. It is alleged by the complainant that OP-3 issued the bill against payment as well as provided one year guarantee on the alleged handset. It is further alleged that after purchasing the same within few days i.e. within the guarantee period on 21.5.2015, the above handset became dead.  The complainant contacted the OP-2 who prepared the job-card and checked the handset, after checking the OP-3 cancelled the job-card and returned the handset to the complainant stating that at present internal part is not available. 

2.     It is alleged that on 24.5.2015, the complainant again contacted to the OP-3 for repairing the handset but official of OP-3 repeated the old story.  It is further alleged that the quality of the handset is very poor as the phone in question became dead within three months of its purchase.  It is submitted that the alleged mobile must be replaced by the OPs as same was under guarantee.  It is stated by the complainant that OP-3 has sold the defective mobile handset to him and OP-2 intentionally did not repair the handset for which the OPs are liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, hence this complaint.

3.     Complaint has been contested by the OPs jointly.  In the written statement, OPs have pleaded that the present complaint is absolutely frivolous and devoid of any cause of action, whatsoever.  It has been pleaded that the complainant has never contacted the OPs, he directly contacted with service centre.  It has been further pleaded that the complainant has only attached the token slip along with his complaint issued by the service centre, the alleged token was issued by service centre of OP-2 to form an orderly queue.  Whenever a customer brings his phone for repair to the service centre, he is required to take a token which has a number printed on it. It has been pleaded that the complainant has not filed a single job sheet, or any other communication that he may have had with the OPs with the present complaint.  It has been pleaded that the OP-1 only provided a limited warranty of one year on all its phone. 

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit. 

5.     We have heard arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.     The present case is filed on 28.5.2015.  The OP has not taken objection towards the jurisdiction of this Forum.  As the case is at final stage of arguments and the present Forum has been constituted on 01.01.2018.  So the Forum deems it fit to proceed with this complaint on merit. Reliance placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harshad Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Another(2005)7 SCC 791.

7.     Some facts are not disputed by the parties such as the alleged handset was of the make of Sony India.  The token slip placed on record by the complainant was also not denied by the OP-1 in its written statement.  It is the contention of the OP that the present complaint is false and frivolous on the ground that the complainant has failed to place on record, the job sheet issued by OP-2 regarding the defects in the alleged mobile.   On the contrary, in its written statement, OP-1 at Para-F of the Preliminary objections itself admitted that  it is the usual practice of OP-2 to issue the tokens  to everyone whosoever visited OP-2., hence it is clear that the complainant had visited the OP-2  for inspection and repairing of the handset in question. The complainant has placed on record the copy of the tokens slip which shows that on 21.5.2015, he visited the service centre again on 24.5.2015 he visited the service centre, issuing the job sheet was not in the hands of the complainant.  It is specifically alleged by the complainant that OP-2 had not provided him any service job-sheet despite his repeated request.  Non placing  of the service job sheet on the record does not lead to the inference that the alleged handset is not defective one.

8.     The complainant has purchased the handset on 8.2.2015 from OP-3, after the few days of purchase, as the alleged handset become dead, complainant visited OP-3 twice since OP-3 failed to entertain his complaint he approached this Forum for his redressal on 28.5.2015 i.e. within the warrantee period. No person of common prudence will approach this Forum if his newly purchased handset is working properly.  Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complainant was compel to approach this Forum for redressal of his grievance.  In such a circumstances, we hold OP-1 guilty of deficient in service and direct it to replace the alleged handset with new one of the same price.  In addition to this we also award a sum of Rs.3,000/- on account of compensation as well as  litigation cost.  The complainant is directed to return the alleged defective mobile phone after receipt of the new one.

9.     The order shall be complied  within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 Announced in open Forum on 04/10/2018.

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                     PRESIDENT

 

                               (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                            (H M VYAS)

                                                          MEMBER                                                  MEMBER