BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.321/16.
Date of instt.: 20.10.2016.
Date of Decision: 26.05.2017.
Dinesh Kumar Dhull son of Sh. Sher Singh, r/o Rishi Nagar, Gali No.11, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director.
- Pushpak Enterprises Building No.1835, Opposite Sec-17, near Ambedkar Chowk, Kurukshetra.
- M/s. Bharti International, G-2, Padma City Mall, Karnal Road, Kaithal through its Authorized Signatory.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Complainant in person.
Sh. S.S.Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile set make Sony E2363 M4 AQUA (White) bearing IMEI No.358363070369370 from Op No.3 for a sum of Rs.18,990/- vide invoice No.3170 dt. 02.11.2015. It is alleged that the said mobile set became defective within the warranty period with the problems of hanging, speaker problem and started giving problem in the display . It is further alleged that the complainant deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.2 on 13.10.2016 but the Op No.2 did not repair the said mobile set and asked the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set. It is further alleged that the complainant made several requests to the Ops to replace the said mobile set or to refund the cost of mobile set to the complainant but the Ops did not do so. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is pre-mature and the Ops are unable to trace the service history of the subject handset; that the Ops have requested the complainant to get the subject handset inspected in case the complainant is facing issues while using the handset; that at present, there is no cause of action since there is no records of complainant approaching the answering Ops; that in the present case, the complainant mentioned about a job-sheet in the complaint, however, the same is forged because no service history exists pertaining to the subject handset with the Ops; that the Ops vide letter dt. 24.11.2016 have offered the complainant to get the handset inspected and repair as per terms of warranty, if the complainant shall approach the authorized service-centre. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed evidence on 10.03.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and closed evidence on 20.04.2017.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. The complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant on 02.11.2015 became defective within the warranty period with the problems of hanging, speaker problem and started giving problem in the display. He further argued that the complainant deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.2 on 13.10.2016 but the Op No.2 did not repair the said mobile set and asked the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set. He further argued that the complainant made several requests to the Ops to replace the said mobile set or to refund the cost of mobile set to the complainant but the Ops did not do so. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the Ops have requested the complainant to get the subject handset inspected in case the complainant is facing issues while using the handset. He further argued that the complainant mentioned about a job-sheet in the complaint, however, the same is forged because no service history exists pertaining to the subject handset with the Ops. He further argued that the Ops vide letter dt. 24.11.2016 have offered the complainant to get the handset inspected and repair as per terms of warranty, if the complainant shall approach the authorized service-centre.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, we found that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 02.11.2015 and the same became defective within the warranty period, as is clear from the job-sheet dt. 13.10.2016, Ex.C1 wherein in the column of consumer complaint, the problem is mentioned “AUTO SILENT & AUTO OFF PROBLEM”. The grievance of the complainant is that the said mobile set was deposited by the complainant with the service-centre of Ops but they did not repair the same. The complainant has filed the present complaint in this forum on 20.10.2016 i.e. within the warranty period. The contention of Ops that the complainant never approached the Ops has no force because the complainant has produced the job-sheet, Ex.C1 which clearly indicates that the mobile set was got deposited by the complainant with the service-centre of Ops. Besides the above-said job-sheet, the complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and bill dt. 12.02.2016, Ex.C1. Moreover, the Ops have admitted in the reply that they are ready to repair the mobile set in question. Thus, we are of the considered view that the Ops have not repaired the mobile set despite the fact that the same was within the warranty period, so, the Ops are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
7. During the arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant has purchased a new mobile set and the mobile set, if replaced by the Ops is of no use for the complainant, so, in the interest of justice, the cost of mobile set may please be ordered to got returned from the Ops. We found force in this contention of the complainant because the defects arose in the mobile set time and again. In this regard, we can rely upon the authority decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal No.460 of 2014 decided on 28.05.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store. So, keeping in view the above citation, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of mobile set be ordered to be refunded after making 30% depreciation of the same.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.13,293/- the cost of the mobile set after deducting 30% depreciation i.e. (Rs.18,990/- less Rs.5697/-=Rs.13,293/-), subject to deposit of mobile set and other accessories with the service-centre of Ops. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.26.05.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
