Haryana

Karnal

CC/99/2015

Rajinder Kumar S/o Shri Mange Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s Jannat Authorized Distributors Sony - Opp.Party(s)

O.P. Kashyap

20 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.99 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.: 26.05.2015

                                                               Date of decision:20.05.2016

 

Rajinder Kumar son of Shri Mange Ram, resident of village Ranwar, tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. M/S Jannat Authorized Distributors Sony,# 139 Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

 

2. Soni India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-opp. Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

 

3. Sony Service Centre, near S.B.I. Learning Centre, Model Town, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      The complainant in person.

                    Opposite parties exparte.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Sony Mobile Hand Set Model C 2004/Xperia M/DS/ Black bearing IMEI no.35270906-101898-2,899-0 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.11,100/-, vide invoice dated 1.8.2014, with a warranty of one year. The said mobile set was manufactured by opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 was authorized service centre of the company. After sometime, the mobile set started giving problems. Screen and touch of the mobile was not working properly. He approached to the opposite party no.1, who sent the mobile set to the service centre i.e. opposite party no.3. Opposite party no.3 rectified the defect and returned the mobile set after 2/3 days. The same problem developed again and again and every time after removal of the defect of the mobile phone worked well for only for 5/7 days.  He again approached the opposite party no.3 for removal of the defect in the mobile set because it was under warranty, but opposite party no.3 demanded Rs.8300/- from him. The official of the opposite party no.3  was adamant and refused to remove the fault of the mobile phone and misbehaved with him. Thereafter, the legal notice dated 16.02.2015 was served upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. Such acts on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part, which caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. None put into appearance on behalf of opposite parties despite service. Therefore, exparte proceedings were initiating against them vide order dated 30.03.2016.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C10 have been tendered.

4                 We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully.

5.                The complainant purchased micromax mobile set model C 2004/Xperia M/DS/ Black  for a sum of Rs.11,100/-. As per allegations of the complainant, since the beginning it was not working properly so he reported the matter to opposite party no.3, the authorized service centre of the company, who kept the hand set for rectification of defect, but did not rectify the defect after several efforts. He further alleged that opposite party no.3 demanded Rs.8300/- for rectification of the defect of the mobile, but he was not liable to pay the same, because the mobile was under warranty period. The copies of the job sheets Ex.C8 to C10 clearly show that the mobile set was  having  problems during warranty period. The complainant has also filed his affidavit in support of his allegations. Thus, evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It was the duty of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 either to rectify the defect or in case the defect was not repairable then replace the mobile set of the complainant. Hence, it is well proved that the service of the opposite parties no.2 and 3 was deficient.

6.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 (being manufacturer) to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same value. We further direct the opposite parties no. 2 to  pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 20.05.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member