Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/646

Rohit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India - Opp.Party(s)

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                            Complaint No: 646 dated 06.09.2016.                                                               Date of decision: 09.10.2017.    

         

Rohit Kumar son of Shri Ashok Kumar, resident of House No.B-34/1770, Near Police Station, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                 ..…Complainant

                                                  Versus

1. Soni India Pvt.  Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Maahdra Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Manager.
2. M/s. Nexus Electronics, 44-A, Kim R.K. Tower, Rishi Nagar, Ground Floor, Ludhiana through its Manager.
3. M/s. Aroma Instant Service, SCO 39-G, LGF B.R.S. Nagar, Market Op. Police Station, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

                              Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh. R.S. Mand, Advocate.

For OPs                           :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                 Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by pleading that he purchased one mobile phone of Sony Experia C4 make vide bill dated 05.12.2015 for consideration of Rs.20,484/-. Since after purchase, the mobile hand set started giving problem because there used to be poor network. Even display did not use to work properly. OP3, authorized service centre was approached by way of deposit of the mobile there on 21.07.2016. Job sheet was issued, but when after given time of 10 days, complainant again approached OP3 for getting back the mobile hand set, then he got same back. This mobile worked only for three days properly and thereafter, it again started giving same problem. Complainant approached OP3 and handed over mobile set to it, regarding which job sheet dated 03.08.2016 again was prepared. Complainant on the given dates of 04.08.2016, 05.08.2016 and 09.08.2016 each approached OP3, but defects in the mobile set not rectified. Rather on 09.08.2016, OP3 flatly refused to repair the hand set of complainant and even administered threats. That mobile set is still lying with OP3. Complainant claimed to have suffered mental pain and agony due to deficient service on the part of OPs.

2.                 In joint written reply filed by OPs, it is claimed that OP1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Admittedly, mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 05.12.2015 from OP2 after satisfying about the features, functions, applications contained therein. OP1 provided limited warranty of one year, but as per terms and conditions of the warranty. As per those terms and conditions, if the product fails to operate during warranty period, then authorized distributors or service partners will repair or replace the product provided the same is put to normal use and service. It is claimed that warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear or due to misuse etc. Even warranty does not cover accidental damage, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid. Complainant had been enjoying the mobile for almost 8 months, when he approached OP3 for the first time on 21.07.2016 by claiming as if touch screen was not working. OP3 immediately inspected the handset and after carrying out the necessary inspection, did the repairs by way of replacing necessary parts, but without charging any fee. Admittedly, complainant again approached OP3 on three subsequent dates for complaining about the issue of, “Touch Auto Working”. OP3 replaced the Front Cover Assembly Black free of costs and thereafter, hand set was ready for collection from OP3, but complainant instead of collecting the repaired handset has filed this complaint on false allegations. Allegations of deficiency in service and the other averments denied one by one each, but by claiming that prompt service was provided free of costs.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and then closed evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, OPs failed to produce any evidence despite grant of sufficient chance. Though earlier OPs were represented through Sh. Jagdeep Pal Singh, Advocate, but later on none turned up for OPs despite adjournments dated 24.07.2017, 28.08.2017 and 27.09.2017 and as such, OPs were proceeded against exparte.

5.                 Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments were heard and records gone through carefully.

6.                 After going through invoice Ex. C1 regarding purchase of the mobile in question by complainant from OP2, it is made out that though this mobile purchased for Rs.20,484.68 on 05.12.2015, but as per endorsement on it, the repair/service of the product to be provided by service centre. So virtually warrantee to be provided by the manufacturer or the service centre and not by the seller. Being so, this complaint containing allegations of providing of deficient service for rectification of defects is maintainable against manufacturer i.e. OP1 or the service centre i.e. OP3, but not against seller i.e. OP2.

7.                 It has been admitted in the written statement filed by OPs that complainant approached OP3 for rectification of the problem in the mobile for first time on 21.07.2016. Further it is admitted that Free of costs service was provided at that time and as such, certainly it is made out that complainant availed mobile services properly without facing any defect or problem therein at least for 7 months after purchase. This long use of more than 7 months of mobile without any fault, in itself points out to the fact that manufacturing defect in the mobile set is not there at all. Even the report of expert not produced to prove the manufacturing defect and as such, replacement of the mobile set in question is not warranted and nor return of the price is  warranted.

8.                 It has been admitted in the written statement by OPs and even perusal of the job sheet Ex. C2 shows that the mobile set again was taken to OP3, the service centre by complainant on 03.08.2016 and the mobile was deposited there. It is admitted in written statement of OPs that mobile set is still lying with OP3. However, as per case of OPs, complainant instead of getting repaired mobile phone back, has filed this false complaint. So virtually it is claimed that duly repaired mobile set is still lying with OP3. Complainant has not disclosed the dates of his visit to OP3 for getting mobile set in question after 05.08.2016 and nor the same mentioned in legal notice Ex. C3 and as such, it is obvious that fault also lays with complainant in not collecting the repaired mobile set. However, it is not disputed by OP1 and OP3 that the mobile set was in warrantee period, when it was deposited on 03.08.2016 with OP3 and as such, manufacturer as well as service centre bound to repair the mobile set free of costs and thereafter, hand over the same to complainant provided complainant also cooperates by approaching OP3 within specific period. Complainant has to visit OP3, the service centre at least on two occasions and even visited the service centre on 04.08.2016 and 05.08.2016 and as such, for this harassment, complainant is entitled for compensation for mental harassment and agony and even to litigation expenses, particularly when OPs have not claimed as to on which date they called upon complainant to get back the duly repaired mobile set from OP3.

9.                 As a sequel of above discussion, complaint against OP2 is dismissed, but same is allowed against OP1 and OP3 in terms that they after repairing the mobile free of costs will hand over the same to complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order provided complainant approaches OP3 within 7 days from date of receipt of copy of order by him. Mobile set is lying with OP3 and it will be his responsibility to hand over the repaired mobile set to complainant as per above said terms. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 and OP3, whose liability held as joint and several. These amounts be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

                                         (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K. Dhir)

                                         Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:09.10.2017.

Gobind Ram.