Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/37/2014

Vipinder Kumar S/o Devi Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ambey Electronic Service - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Rana

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 37  of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 17.01.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 25.04.2016.

Vipinder Kumar son of Sh. Devi Singh aged about 26 years resident of village Golni, P.O. Mustfabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Ambay Electronic Service, D.S. 14, First Floor, Jail Land, Sector-01, HUDA Market, Haryana-Ambala 134003.
2. Sony Care Centre, Near Patanjali Chhoti Line, Yamuna Nagar.
3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Jitender Rana, Advocate, counsel for complainant

              Respondents No.1 & 2 already ex-parte.  

              Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Vipinder Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the defective mobile set with new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of mobile set alongwith interest and further directed to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile set Sony Model No. ST21i bearing IMEI No. 353809057769041 vide bill No. nil, dated 5.11.2012 for an amount of Rs. 9300/- from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3. From the very beginning, the mobile set was not working properly and suffering from problem of hanging as it used to switch off automatically. The complainant approached the OP No.1 a number of times and complained regarding the said problem in the set who some time kept the mobile and asked  the complainant to take the same after 2-3 days but thereafter also the said defect could not be removed and said mobile is still suffering from manufacturing defect, due to which complainant is suffering a lot. After some days the complainant visited the OP No.1 but he openly stated that the defect is hanging defect which is not removable. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to replace the said mobile set with new one or to refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs. 9300/- alongwith interest from the date of purchase till actual realization, but OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant. Hence this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 failed to appear despite service, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.04.2014. OP No.3 appeared and filed its written statement by by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is vexatious, baseless and is more of an abuse of the due process of law and on merit it has been stated that Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of distributing and marketing of mobile phones and other electronics goods under the brand name of SONY and it holds an impeccable position in the mobile phone industry in India. It has been further submitted that the liability of OPs lies strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it on its product and the OPs cannot be held liable for claims falling outside the scope of warranty.  It has been further submitted that as per the records of the company the complainant had purchased Sony Xperia Mobile phone having Model No. ST21i and IMEI No. 353809057769041 on 05.11.2011. The warranty provided by the OP No.3 to the complainant on purchase of the mobile phone is valid for one year from the date of purchase. A copy of warranty terms as provided by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is annexed as Annexure R-3/3. The terms of warranty provided by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant clearly states the following

                        “This warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal and customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product. Nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid.

                        It has been further submitted that in the present case the complainant, on 07.05.2013 approached the authorized service centre of the OP No.3 with the problem of “Pixel Error”, in the handset and subsequent to inspection by the service engineer of the OP No.3, the ear speaker and LCD of the handset were replaced and the handset was delivered to the complainant on 15.5.2013 after the complainant had satisfied himself with the condition and working of the handset. The complainant approached the OP No.2 subsequently on 01.08.2013, 18.10.2013 and 24.10.2013 with the complaints such as “ lines in display/phone slow”. It has been submitted that on each occasion, the Op No.2 duly attended to the complaints of complainant and provided repair service on the handset as required, including the LCD and upgradation of the software of the handset. It has been further submitted that as a goodwill gesture, the OP No.3 made an offer to the complainant that he could exchange the current handset with a same or similar value model, free of cost or exchange the current handset with any of the current Xperia range upon payment of the difference in price between the two handsets. Furthermore, the OPs have even offered to refund the entire cost of the current hand set to the complainant in the event that he does not wish to exchange the handset. However, the complainant has refused the said offers and is pursuing the present complaint with an intention of making illegal gains. The present complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of job sheet dated 18.10.2014 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of  Priyank Chauhan, available at Sony India Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure RW3/A and documents such as Photo copy of order dated 23.07.2013 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi under section 391 & 394 of the Companies Act as Annexure R3/1, Photo copy of Resolution dated 7.2.2014 as Annexure R3/2, Photo copy of Important information/ terms and conditions as Annexure R-3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 05.11.2012 vide Bill dated 5.11.2012 for a sum of Rs. 9300/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3. The only plea of the complainant is that the mobile phone in question is defective from the very beginning and defects could not be rectified by the OPs despite various efforts. Firstly the complainant approached the authorized service centre i.e. Op No.2 on 7.5.2015 with the problem of pixel error in the hand set and at inspection the ear speaker ne LCD of the handset in question were replaced and the mobile set was return to the complainant on 15.5.2013 i.e. after a period of 8 days. Secondly, the complainant again faced the problems and visited on 1.8.2013, 18.10.2013 and 24.10.2013 with the complaints such as “ Lines in display/ phone slow” and on each occasion, the OP service Centre duly attended the complaint of the complainant and provided repair including replacement of LCD and upgradation of software. Hence, the complainant again and again is facing hardship and mental agony and requested for refund the amount/cost of the mobile in question.

9.                     On the other hand, the OP No.3 Company admitted the entire case of the complainant that firstly visited the service centre on 7.5.2013 and the ear speaker and LCD of the handset in question were replaced and handset was returned to the complainant on 15.5.2013 and further it has also been admitted by the OP No.3 that complainant again approached on 1.8.2013, 18.10.2013 and 24.10.2013 with the complaint “ line in display/ phone slow” but all the complaints were duly attended by the service engineer of the OPs. Further the OP No.3 Company has gracefully admitted in para No.6 of the preliminary objections of the written statement which is reproduced here as under”

It is further submitted that as a goodwill gesture, the answering opposite parties made an offer to the complainant that he could exchange the current handset with a same or similar value model, free of cost; or exchange the current handset with any of the current Xperia range upon payment of the difference in price between the two hand sets. Furthermore, the answering opposite parties have even offered to refund the entire cost of the current handset to the complainant in the event that he does not wish to exchange the handset. However, the complainant has refused the said offers and is pursuing the present complaint with an intention of making illegal gains. The present complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

10.                   As the OP No.3 itself admitted that they are ready to exchange the current hand set  with a same or similar value mobile free of costs or exchange the current handset with any xperia range upon payment of difference in price and further they are ready to refund the entire cost of the current hand set to the complainant.

11.                   Although the OP No.3 Company gracefully due to goodwill gesture offer all the schemes to the complainant and was ready to refund the entire cost of the current handset or replace the mobile set in question. However, from the perusal of this complaint, it is not disputed that complainant might have suffered some mental agony and harassment as his mobile set in question remained out of working order for many days and complainant could not enjoy the facilities of mobile in question firstly from 7.5.2013 to 15.5.2013 and on the subsequent dates also. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief on this account also.

12.                   In view of the facts narrated above, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to refund the cost of mobile set in question i.e. Rs. 9300/- to the complainant subject to return of the old mobile set to the OPs within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulting period. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs. 1000/- as litigation expense. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per Rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 25.04.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER