Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/88/2015

Rahul Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony - Opp.Party(s)

in person

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/88/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	10/02/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	30/07/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rahul Chauhan son of Sh. Dinesh Singh, resident of House No. 1372/5, Patel Nagar, Gurgaon – 122001.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

(1)  Sony, 3^rd Floor, Adarsh Mall, Plot No.50, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-2, Chandigarh – 160002, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

 

(2)  Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Limited, Authorized Service Centre, SCO 144-145, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 

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

 

(4)  Rai & Sons, SCO 60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh – 160047, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR           PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OPs No.1,3 & 4	:	Sh. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate (OPs No.1, 3 & 4 already ex-parte)
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

]

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are conceptualized hereinafter. The Complainant had purchased one Sony Xperia Z Black mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.29,490/-, with one year warranty and six months accidental insurance, vide Receipt No. AWN-8378 dated 5.3.2014. On 28.5.2014, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 for claiming the accidental insurance. The Opposite Party No.2 swapped the aforesaid mobile handset with another mobile phone on 9.6.2014. When the Complainant used the swapped mobile phone, he faced technical snags like hanging on call, battery, restart and heat-up problems etc. Accordingly, he approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 13.8.2014, who repaired the handset and delivered it back to the Complainant after few days. Thereafter, on 20.12.2014, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.4, who retained the handset and issued a job sheet. The Opposite Party No.4 handed over the mobile phone to the Complainant after repair on 3.1.2015. However, when the Complainant again faced similar kind of problems, he contacted Opposite Party No.4 on 27.1.2015, but Opposite Party No.4 refused to entertain him saying that they were unable to rectify the defect in the mobile handset in question. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 04.05.2015.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, has pleaded that the Complainant approached the answering Opposite Party for the repair of the handset in question on different occasions. The said handset was swapped and repaired free of cost within the warranty period and as per the standard warranty of the manufacturing company. It has been urged that the Complainant has approached the answering Opposite Party lastly on 14.8.2014 and after that he is approaching Opposite Party No.4 only i.e. the other Authorized Service Centre and is raising grouse against the manufacturing company as he is demanding refund of his amount. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

5.     We have the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

 

6.     It is proved from the retail invoice that the Complainant had purchased Sony Xperia Z Black mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 on 05.03.2014 for Rs.29,490/-. It is further proved from the service job sheet dated 28.05.2014, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 for claiming the accidental insurance, who swapped the said mobile handset with another mobile phone. It is the case of the Complainant that in the swapped mobile phone he faced technical snags like hanging on call, battery, restart and heat-up problems etc. on account of which he submitted the mobile handset with the Opposite Party No.2 on 13/14.8.2014 who repaired the handset and delivered it back. Thereafter, on facing similar problems, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.4 on 20.12.2014, but it dilly-dallied the return of the handset to the Complainant and rather issued fresh service job sheets dated 22.12.2014 and 24.12.2014 and finally, on 27.1.2015, told him that they were unable to rectify the defect in the mobile handset in question. In support of his claim, the Complainant has annexed all the service job sheets of the aforestated dates.

 

7.     The stand taken by Opposite Party No.2 is that the said handset was swapped and repaired free of cost within the warranty period. The Complainant has approached it (OP No.2) on 14.8.2014 and after that he is approaching Opposite Party No.4 only i.e. the other Authorized Service Centre.

 

8.     We feel that as per the complaint of the Complainant the product in question which was purchased for Rs.29,490/- was initially submitted to Opposite Party No.2 and thereafter to Opposite Party No.4 (Authorized Service Centres) so many times for necessary repairs and this fact points out towards the poor quality of the product. It is only Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 who could clarify the facts regarding the quality and frequent repairs of the mobile handset and its return to the Complainant after proper repairs. Pertinently, Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 have not come forward to contest the case and preferred to proceed against ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4.

 

9.     It is important to note that Opposite Party No.3 being the Seller of the mobile handset in question cannot be held liable for the quality of the product or the services provided to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complaint stands dismissed against Opposite Party No.3. Similarly, since the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.2 lastly on 14.8.2014 and thereafter, had approached the Opposite Party No.4 only i.e. the other Authorized Service Centre, for repairs, we feel that no liability can be fastened upon Opposite Party No.2. In these circumstances, the Complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 also stands dismissed.

 

10.     The act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 for providing the sub-standard product to the Complainant and later non-providing of the services for the defects reported in the same, clearly proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant.  Evidently, the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself, but not for lodging the complaints to the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice, in the absence of proper services provided by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 4. We feel that only after getting exhausted of remedies available to him, the complainant took a decision for filing the present complaint.

 

11.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 are deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 4, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.29,490 /- being the invoice price of the Sony Xperia Z Black mobile handset along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment, till realization, and take back the defective mobile handset, from the complainant, if the same is in his possession, at their expenses;

 

[b]  Pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

 

          The Complaint fails against Opposite Party No.2 and 3.

 

12.     This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; thereafter, they shall pay the amount at Sr. No.[b] above with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides complying with directions at Sr. No.[a] and [c] above.

 

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

Announced

30^th July, 2015                                       

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                          Sd/-        

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                            MEMBER