Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/230/2016

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sunil K. Chindaliya

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

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

==========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/230/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	01/04/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	03/04/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Mandeep Singh son of Shri Bohar Singh, resident of House No.2815/B, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.

…………. Complainant.

Versus

 

1.   Sony India Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office: A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044, through its Director.

 

2.   Techno Care, through its Prop., SCO 128-129, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

3.   Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Limited, through its Prop., Regd. Office SCO 1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. S.S. PANESAR             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR          MEMBER

                SH. S.K.SARDANA              MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sunil K. Chindaliya, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Ex-parte.
For OP Nos.2 & 3	:	Sh. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

 

PER S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant purchased one Sony Xperia Z Ultra Black Model C-6802 mobile handset for Rs.20,900/- on 08.04.2015 from Opposite Party No.3 vide bill Annexure C-1. It has been alleged that soon after three months of its purchase, the aforesaid mobile handset encountered hanging relating problems. On being approached, Opposite Party No.2 on 09.07.2015 replaced the mobile handset and gave a new handset of same model. Thereafter, on account of similar problem, the Complainant once again approached the Opposite Party No.2 and once again, on 07.01.2016 Opposite Party No.2 replaced the mobile handset with new handset of the same model. On the same day, the said mobile handset started creating same problem and was submitted with Opposite Party No.2 for repair. On 28.02.2016, Opposite Party No.2 replaced the mobile handset with new handset of same model. Thereafter, the replaced new mobile handset again started giving same problem after 2-3 days. Having left with no option, the Complainant deposited the said mobile handset with Opposite Party No.2 on 01.02.2016. Hence, 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. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 in their reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that after the purchase of the mobile handset by the Complainant, the same was replaced with the fresh one thrice, without charging anything from the Complainant. Everything was done absolutely free of cost. It has been asserted that lastly the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 01.02.2016 raising an issue of MIC not working. The Opposite Party No.3 without any delay attended the Complainant and resolved the issue by replacing the handset with the fresh one. The Complainant was duly informed regarding the same, but surprisingly the Complainant did not collect the handset. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 has been controverted.

 

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 contesting Parties and have also perused the record.
7.      The Complainant in his Complaint has urged that the mobile handset was having a manufacturing defect, as every time when the Complainant apprapoched the Opposite Party No.2, it replaced the handset with new one. We have meticulously scanned the entire documentary evidence placed on record by the Parties and find that as and when the mobile hand in question gave the problem, the same was replaced with new mobile phone every time, without delay. However, at no point of time, the Complainant ever attached any expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Hence, it is safe to deduce that there is not even an iota of evidence that the mobile handset in question is suffering from any defect, much less manufacturing defect. It is important to note that lastly on 01.02.2016 when the Complainant deposited the handset with Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.3 resolved the issue by replacing the handset with the fresh one. However, the Complainant did not turn up to collect the same. In this backdrop, we are of the concerted view that the Complainant himself is at fault in not collecting the handset and he cannot be allowed to lay the whole blame on the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 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.

 

8.      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.

 

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

Announced

03^rd April, 2017                                   Sd/-                   

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

 

                                              Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

                                              Sd/-

(S.K.SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER