Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/350/2015

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Adv.

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	350/2015
Date of Institution	:	08.07.2015
Date of Decision	:	31.12.2015

 

                                               

                                                         

Amandeep Singh s/o Sh.Tarlochan Singh r/o #31, Ward No.9, Village Bhabat, Zirakpur, District Mohali.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its M.D./Authorized Representative.

 

2.      Modern Sales-22, SCO No.1122, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh-160022 through its Proprietor/Authorized Representative.

 

3.      Rai & Sons, SCO No.60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh -160047 through its Authorized Representative.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.R.P.Singh, Counsel for the complainant

                   Sh.Anil Johar, Counsel for OP No.1.

                   OPs No.2 and 3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased  a  mobile handset  make Sony Xperia Z-3, White bearing IMEI No.35509806-018110-9 vide invoice dated 03.04.2015 for Rs.35,600/- from OP No.2.  It has further been averred that OP No.2 also assured the complainant that the mobile phone in question comes with a special feature of water proof of IP 65/68 rating alongwith one year warranty. On 04.04.2015, unfortunately, the mobile handset slipped from his hands and fell into the water bucket. However, he immediately within one second took out the same from the water bucket.  It has further been averred that when the mobile phone fell into the water bucket, all the ports like charging port, sim port were firmly closed and there was no chance of getting the water inside the mobile phone. Thereafter, he handed over the mobile phone in question to OP No.3 against job sheet dated 06.04.2015(Annexure C-3) for its repairs and he was asked to collect the same after three days. However, when he went to collect the delivery of the mobile phone, he was told that the warranty became void due to entering of the water.  It has further been averred that in the job sheet issued to the complainant, the name of one Sh.Kashmiri Lal was mentioned and further on the right hand side of the said job sheet, the previous job no. was mentioned as “B1W1115013004596 dated 18.02.2015. It has further been averred that OP No.2 had sold a second hand mobile handset by projecting the same as a brand new.  It has further been averred that on 04.05.2015 when he went to OP No.3 to get the mobile phone repaired then its official told him that the same was repairable on payment of Rs.26,000/- only. It has further been averred that he requested the OPs to refund the price of the mobile phone but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Party No.2 & 3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.08.2015.
3.           In its written statement, OP No.1 has not approached the Forum with clean hands as he had purchased the mobile phone in question at a discounted rate of 15% of the MRP and he was well aware that the handset being purchased by him was not a fresh piece but a demo piece.  It has further been pleaded that his mobile handset fell down in the water and suffered from water ingression and as such the warranty became void and the repairs, if any, shall only be on chargeable basis.  However, the contents with regard to the IP ingress ratings are not denied. It has further been pleaded that these certification are given to the mobile handsets on the basis of international certifications. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.1 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.  It has been pleaded that the complainant and his friend namely Deepak Kumar has purchased two mobile handsets on the same day on 03.04.2015 at the same rate and of the same model from the same shop of OP No.2.  A copy of the invoice dated 03.04.2015 of the mobile phone purchased by his friend is Annexure C-6. Besides this, the complainant has also placed on record the affidavit of his friend as Annexure C-7. It has further been pleaded that a false story of 15% discount and sale of demo set has been concocted by OP No.1 in its written statement to deny the claim of the complainant.
5.           We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.           The core question to be determined in this case is as to whether OPs No1 and 2 have committed a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by selling a secondhand mobile handset to the complainant or not.
7.           The plea of the complainant is that OP No.2 had sold a second hand mobile handset by alleging it to be a brand new handset for a sum of Rs.35,600/- bearing IMEI No.35509806-0181109 vide invoice dated 03.04.2015 and as such they have indulged into unfair trade practice.
8.           On the other hand, the plea of the Counsel for OP No.1 is that the complainant had purchased the demo set at a discounted rate of 15% of the MRP and he had concealed these material facts from the Forum and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. 
9.           Annexure C-1 is a copy of the invoice No.3019 dated 03.04.2015 of the mobile phone in question issued by OP No.2 to the complainant for a sum of Rs.35,600/-. In the said invoice, it has nowhere been mentioned that the mobile handset in question was a demo set or the same was sold to the complainant at the discount of 15% of the MRP as tried to be projected by OP No.1 in its reply.   Besides this the complainant has rebutted this plea of OP No.1 by placing on record another Invoice No.3020 dated 03.04.2015  with respect to the mobile handset, having the same model and make which was sold to his friend Mr.Deepak Kumar at the same cost as was sold to the complainant by OP No.2.  It is amply clear from Annexure C-6 that OP No.2 had sold another mobile handset of the same make and model, configurations and features to the friend of the complainant at the same price as was sold to the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has also placed on record the affidavit of his friend Sh.Deepak Kumar in support of his averments. In this view of the matter, the plea of OP No.1 that the complainant had purchased the demo set at the discounted rate of  15% is devoid of any merit and the same is rejected accordingly. 
10.           As regards the plea of the complainant regarding the selling of the secondhand mobile handset to him is concerned, the same stands proved from the job sheet dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure C-3) wherein one Sh.Kashmir Lal had got repaired the mobile handset, having the same IMEI No. 35509806-0181109 as was sold to the complainant vide job sheet No.B1W1115013004596 dated 18.02.2015 from M/s Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd.  Moreover, OP No.2 did not come forward to deny the averments made in the complaint and rather it preferred to proceed against exparte and as such adverse inference is also drawn against it. Thus, OPs No.1 and 2 have proved to be indulged into unfair trade practice by selling the second handset mobile handset to the complainant. 
11.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed as under ;-

1. To refund Rs.35,600/- i.e. the price of the product in question to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.7,000/-  as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

12.           However, the complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
13.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31.12.2015                                                                                         Sd/-

                     (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER