Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/709/2015

Shahid - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person Devinder Kumar,Adv

25 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	709/2015
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	25/05/2016

 

                                                

                                     

                  

Shahid r/o H.No.242/C, Daria now  presently r/o H.No.642/C, Daria, Near Railway Station, UT, Chandigarh

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Regd. Office), through its Authorized Signatory.

2.      Bobby Electronics, the world of Mobiles SCO No.106, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh (UT), through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

3.      Techno Care (Service Centre), SCO No.128-129, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (UT) through its Authorized Signatory.

­­…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the complainant, alongwith   the complainant in person.

                   Sh.Vikrant Sharma, Adv. for the OPs.    

                            

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased a mobile phone make Sony Xperia M5 from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 11.11.2015 for Rs.32,500/- (Annexure C-1), having warranty of one year. After few days, the same started giving problems and it was repaired thrice by the Service Center (OP No.3) on 17.11.2015, 18.11.2015 and 21.11.2015.  The mobile phone used to auto shut down the applications and having problems in its camera and speaker also.  It has further been averred that when the problems could not be rectified by OP No.3 then he requested it to refund the price of the mobile phone who assured him that they would send an e-mail to OP No.1 in this regard and it would take 10-15 days and they also given him a standby phone. It has further been averred that the standby mobile phone was also faulty and so he visited many times to OP No.3 but neither any approval from OP No.1 nor any satisfactory reply was received from OP No.3. However, on 29.11.2015, OP No.3 replied that the request for refund has been rejected by OP No.1.  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.           In their joint written statement, the OPs have admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question.  However, they have pleaded that the mobile phone was replaced with a fresh one when the complainant raised the issue. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service, a prayer for dismissal of the compliant has been filed.
3.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
4.           During the course of the arguments i.e. on 12.05.2016, the Counsel for the OPs has submitted that the OPs are ready to refund the invoice value of the mobile handset in question alongwith Rs.2,000/- but the complainant had refused to accept the same.  Since OPs have shown their willingness and readiness to refund the price of the mobile handset, in question, to the complainant after filing of the complaint before this Forum and, therefore, we are of the considered that the complainant is required to be appropriately compensated for the harassment and mental agony undergone by him at the hands of the OPs on account of the defective mobile handset in question. Had the Opposite Parties redressed the genuine grievance of the complainant before filing of the complaint then the position certainly would have been different but they failed to do so.  However, keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment  as well as litigation expenses.
5.           In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.32,500/- to the complainant alongwith lump sum compensation of Rs.3,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment  as well as litigation expenses.
6.           This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the aforesaid awarded amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
7.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25/05/2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER