Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/832/2015

Manaswi Dabaria - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.S. Dabaria

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/832/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	15/12/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	17/08/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Manaswi Dabaria S/o Shri D.S. Dabaria, R/o H.No.666-A, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh, through his father Shri D.S. Dabaria S/o Shri S.S. Dabaria, R/o H.No.666-A, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

VERSUS

 

(1)  Sony India Pvt. Limited, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate C Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director.

 

(2)  Sony India Pvt. Limited, SCO 128-129, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022, through Customer Care Officer.

 

(3)  Ultimate Services, Showroom No.55, Sector 5, Swastik Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, through its Customer Care Officer.

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sanjay Pathania, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Anuj Sood, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Deepak Sharma, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased one Sony Xperia Z Ultra mobile handset on 20.02.2015, through amazon.in, for Rs.18,417/-. It has been averred that during May. 2015, on account of ‘No Power’ problem in the said handset, the Opposite Party No.2 allegedly replaced the same with a new one on 15.06.2015. However, the replaced handset also started giving problem of Touch and Mic and was again allegedly replaced by the Opposite Party No.3 on 07.07.2015. The alleged new set again started giving the same problem after 29 days, upon which it was taken to Opposite Party No.2 on 5.8.2015 and was returned to the Complainant on 29.8.2015 with the remarks ‘No Problem Found’. But to the utter surprise of the Complainant, the mobile set was still giving the same problem of Touch and Mic. Thereafter, the Complainant apprised the Opposite Parties about the same problem facing by him in the mobile handset in question, but they have no solution for the same. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties, in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case have pleaded that the issue raised by the Complainant with respect to the subjected mobile handset was resolved timely. It has been asserted that instead of carrying out any repair action, the Opposite Parties straightaway replaced the subjected mobile handset with the fresh one, without charging anything from the Complainant. While admitting that the Complainant approached Opposite Parties on 5.8.2015 raising an issue of ‘Can’t Power On’ with the handset, it has been pleaded that upon thorough inspection of the handset, the Opposite Parties observed that the handset was working normally and there was no trouble with it. The same fact was communicated to the Complainant and the handset was delivered back to him in a proper working condition. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

 

7.      It is evident from Annexure C-1, coupled with the affidavit of the Complainant that he purchased one Sony Xperia Z Ultra mobile handset for Rs.18,417/- on 20.02.2015. Annexures C-2 and C-3 are the job-sheets dated 12.05.2015 and 26.06.2015 and on both the occasions the handset in question was replaced as per the case of the Complainant. Annexure C-4 is one more job-sheet dated 05.08.2015. According to the Complainant, this time again the problem of Touch and Mic was noticed in the replaced handset, but the defective handset was handed over to the Complainant on 29.08.2015 with specific comments over Annexure C-4 “NO PROBLEM FOUND & S/W DONE”. Annexure C-5 is the letter dated 27.08.2015 from the Opposite Parties reporting that on inspection, it was found that the handset was working normally as per its specification. There was no defect in the handset and it did not need any service. So, the Opposite Parties showed their inability to comply with the request of the Complainant to refund the price of the handset.  

 

8.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that as and when the Complainant reported any Complaint in the mobile handset the same was resolved timely. It has been contended that instead of carrying out any repair, straightaway replacement was done with a new handset without charging anything from the Complainant and when the handset was submitted to them on 05.08.2015 it was found after thorough inspection of the handset that there was no problem and the handset was working normally. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

9.      It is an admitted fact that the mobile handset was replaced twice. However, there is no evidence on record which shows that the handset replaced second time is having any kind of defect. Furthermore, the Complainant before filing the case or during the pendency of the case did not seek any expert opinion to ascertain as to whether there is any fault still persisting in the handset or not. Thus we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

10.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

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

Announced

17^th August, 2016                                            

 

Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                               

Sd/-    

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER   

 

Sd/-                      

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”                                                                           MEMBER