| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/150 of 17.7.2015 Decided on: 27.4.2016 Nitesh S/o Vinod Kumar, aged 22 years, resident of House No.427, Main Road, Taffazalpura, Patiala, Punjab. …………...Complainant Versus 1. A-One Communications, Near Qimat Rai Jewellers, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala-147001, through its Proprietor. 2. Sankalp Electronics, SCF-9, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Patiala, through its Proprietor. 3. Sony India Pvt.Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, through its General Manager. …………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Smt.Kusum Sood , Advocate For Ops No.2&3: Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate ORDER NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one mobile phone, make Sony Xperia- Z Model No.C 6602 black 355666058319574 from Op no.1 on 18.7.2014 for an amount of Rs.29,000/-. It is averred that in the month of December,2014, the said mobile phone stopped working properly. It used to go blank many times and the complainant approached Op no.2 where he was told that there was nothing wrong in the phone and it would start working again after getting connected with the charger. The complainant also did not pursue the complaint. Thereafter on 25.6.2015, the said mobile phone stopped responding and the complainant approached Op no.2, i.e. the authorized service centre of Op no.3 and deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 who told the complainant to came after some days. On 9.7.2015, the complainant visited Op No.2 and Op no.2 informed the complainant that there was no power in the mobile phone and also it was water logged and issued the job card with an estimated value of expenditure amounting to Rs.15,911/- for rectifying the defect in the said mobile phone.The complainant has further averred that the mobile phone inquestion was water resistant and the defect occurred in the mobile phone within warranty period which the Op was bound to rectify but it failed to do which resulted in deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment and ultimately he approached the Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act).
- Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Ops No.2&3 only. Op no.3 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte.Op no.3 filed an application for setting aside exparte proceedings which was allowed on the payment of costs as the complainant had no objection if the exparte order was set aside. Despite availing of five opportunities, Op no.3 failed to file written version and ultimately its defence was struck off whereas Op no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint.
- In the written version filed by op no.2, it has admitted the complainant having purchased the mobile phone in question from Op no.1. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant approached Op no.2 on 29.6.2015 with the complaint ‘No Power and water logged’. It is further admitted that the complainant was told that there will be an expenditure of Rs.15911/- by the Op as the set will be sent to HVC, Chandigarh. The Op has further admitted that the mobile phone in question is water resistant but the complainant violated certain terms and conditions as mentioned on the job card due to which the mobile phone went out of warranty. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and his counsel closed the evidence, whereas the counsel for Op no.2tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Manoj Aggarwal, Prop. Sankalp Electronics, Ex.OPB, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Sachin Maurya, Senior Technician alongwith documents Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
- The complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from op no.1 on 18.7.2014 for an amount of Rs.29000/-.Ex.C4 is the copy of the job sheet whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 on 29.6.2015 with the complaint ‘No Power’ and water logged’.
- It is the case of the complainant that in the month of December,2014, some problem occurred in the mobile phone and the complainant approached Op no.2 but no job sheet has been placed on record in support of the complaint. Again in the month of June,2015, the mobile phone started giving problem and the complaint deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C4 with the complaint ‘No Power and ‘water logged”.
- It is the case of the complainant that the mobile phone purchased by him was water resistant and this fact has also been admitted by Op No.2 but Op no.2 has taken the plea that the complainant violated certain terms and conditions mentioned on the job card due to which the mobile phone went out of warranty and the complainant will have to pay an amount of Rs.15911/- for the repair of the mobile phone but Op no.2 has failed to mention as to which term and condition mentioned on the job card was violated by the complainant due to which the mobile phone in question went out of warranty.
- In the present case, the mobile phone got defective during warranty period and Op no.2 was bound to rectify the defect free of cost, which it failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of Op no.2.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion , we accept the complaint with a direction to Ops no.2&3 to rectify the defect in the mobile phone upto the satisfaction of the complainant and if that is not possible to replace it with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.29000/- , the price of the mobile phone. Ops no.2&3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant and also to pay an amount of Rs.2500/- as cost of litigation. Order be complied by Ops no.2&3 within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced Dated:27.4.2016 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta Member Member | |
