Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/476

Lalit Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Bhandari

28 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 476 of 10.08.2015

Date of Decision            :   28.12.2015

                              

Lalit Arora s/o Sh.Mangat Ram Arora r/o Roop Nagar, Street No.1, Peer Khana Road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Sony India, Head Office :- A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 Delhi(India).

2.M/s Free India Agency, G.T.Road, Khanna-141401, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.

3.Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,(Service Centre) SCO-126-127, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager Sh.Naveen.

4.Sh.Naveen Manager of Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,(Service Centre) SCO-126-127, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

…Opposite parties

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :       Sh.Rahul Bhambri, Advocate

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Lalit Arora against Ops by claiming that he purchased one mobile make Sony Xperia ZL from OP2 through cash memo receipt No.383 dated 16.2.2014 for consideration of Rs.26,300/-. That mobile set was having problems of over heat up and hangover. Side plastic strips used to get detached automatically. Matter was reported to OP3 and OP4,          who replaced the same with one old mobile set Sony Xperia ZL in the month of July, 2014. That mobile set was having defects of over heat up, voice problem and even side plastic strip used to get detached automatically. Hangover problem of the mobile even is there. Thereafter, complainant again approached OP3 and OP4 on 25.11.2014 for replacement of the mobile set. Job sheet dated 25.11.2014 with ID No.14112503383 was issued. Satisfactory response was not given, despite repeated visits by the complainant. Matter is procrastinated and that is why the complainant lodged complaints through emails. Replies through emails even were received. So, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, direction sought against OPs for paying compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering along with litigation expenses of Rs.8000/-.

2.                Notice of the complainant issued to OPs, but none appeared for OPs and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.09.2015.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C16 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                During the course of hearing arguments, satisfactory replies to the queries put by this Forum were not given and that is why, supplementary statement of the complainant Sh.Lalit Arora present in the Forum was recorded by us. After recording of this statement, arguments were heard and records gone through carefully.

5.                 Ex.C1 is the bill through which purchase of mobile in question took place on 16.02.2014. So, complainant is able to establish that he purchased the mobile in question from OP2. After going through terms of Ex.C1, it is made out that after sale of the mobile set, the warranty to be supplied by the company. So certainly Op2 could not be held responsible for the fault because as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, manufacturer i.e. OP1 to remove the defects through its service provider i.e. Op3. Op4 is the Manager of OP3 and his     liability will remain as official of OP3 and not in his individual capacity. In fact OP4 is arrayed through OP3 itself and as such, there is no necessity to pass a separate order against OP4.

6.                Complainant through his recorded statement of today admitted that backup phone issued to him by the company is available with him even today in this Forum and he has shown that backup mobile set. Mention of the available backup mobile set is available in the job sheet Ex.C2 dated 25.11.2014 itself. That fact of providing of backup phone has not been mentioned in the complaint or in the affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant and as such, there is suppression of fact in that respect. As and when, there is suppression of fact, than compensation must not be allowed, particularly when as per recorded statement of the complainant, defects in the purchased mobile set developed for the first time in the month of July 2014. As the purchased mobile set remained in proper working order from its purchase in the month of February, 2014 to July 2014 as per the recorded statement of the complainant and as such, virtually the complainant availed due services through purchased mobile set until July 2014 at least. Even after defects in the mobile set in July 2014, OP1 through OP3 provided alternative mobile set, so that working of the complainant may not suffer and as such, virtually OP1 and OP3 has not caused any professional loss to the complainant. Being so, complainant not entitled to any compensation. However, complainant will be entitled to cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2500/- at least because he has filed the complaint for non-redressal of his problem.

7.                Document Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 shows that the complainant had been taking up the matter with OPs for due redresssal of his grievances of heating and hanging problem in the mobile set. On footnote of Ex.C2, the job sheet dated 25.11.2014 itself it is mentioned that standby set should be returned in same condition, for which, it was provided to the complainant, otherwise cost of the standby unit will be charged with the job repair charges from the customer. In view of the acceptance of the standby set by the complainant, the complainant is bound to return the standby set at the time of replacement or at the time of obtaining of repaired mobile set. As defects in the mobile set in question surfaced during the warranty period and as such, Op1 and OP3 are jointly and severally liable to rectify the defects.

8.                As per law laid down in case Sunil Sharma vs. National Insurance Company Limited-II(2015)Consumer Protection Judgments-46(Delhi), disputes    by the Consumer Forums are to be decided on yardsticks of reasonableness, probability and principal of natural justice by applying them in full force. On the analogy of law laid down in this case, it is obvious that company virtually took all precautions of ensuring that loss not caused to the complainant in business and   that is why the backup phone was issued and provided.

9.                As per law laid down in case Uttam Sarkar vs. Management of Tura Christian Hospital and others-2014(2)Consumer Law Today-421(M.L.), the standard of proof in consumer case is not the same as required in criminal cases, but it must be shown that pleadings and stand taken by the parties are tangible and acceptable. That standard of proof kept in mind and that is why statement of Lalit Arora complainant separately recorded for finding that backup phone has been provided by the company to the complainant. This fact was required to be specifically pleaded and brought to the notice of this Forum while leading evidence by the complainant, but same is not mentioned. Even if there is suppression of fact, despite that complainant entitled to the relief of repair or in the alternative of replacement of the mobile set with new one free of costs because of proof on deficiency in service.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that OP1 and OP3 will repair the mobile set in question or in the alternative, they will replace the old mobile set with new one free of costs. Back up mobile phone issued to the complainant by Ops will be deposited by complainant with OP3 at the time of receipt of the repaired mobile set or the replaced one. Litigation expenses of Rs.2500/- also allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP1 and OP3. However, no order as to compensation is passed. Liability of OP1 and OP3 held as joint and several. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of the order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                            (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                   President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:28.12.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.