Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 76.
Instituted on : 30.01.2017.
Decided on : 30.07.2018.
Jagbir son of Randhir Singh r/o H.No.151, Village Baiyapur Khurd, Radhana Road, Sonipat.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Aneja Mobile Ghar, Opposite Myna Tourist Complex, Delhi Road, Rothak, through its Proprietor.
- Sai Security system, Near Malabar Guest House, Green Road, Rothak, through its Proprietor.
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-44.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Pankaj Sharma Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Harinder Rana, counsel for OP No.4.
Opposite parties No.1 and 2 exparte.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that he had purchased a mobile phone from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.19700/- on 01.08.2015 with one year guarantee/warranty. That the mobile phone become defective during warranty period as it has charging problem. That complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 three times and the defect was removed by the official of OP No.2 but inspite of this mobile phone did not function properly. That lastly the complainant contacted the OP no.2 on 05.09.2016 and the mobile phone is in the custody of OP. That the OP told that the screen of the mobile phone was damaged and demanded Rs.8000/- for the same whereas at the time of depositing the set the screen of the set as OK. The fault if any, is on the part of official of OP No.2. That complainant requested the OPs either to refund the price or to replace the same but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to make the payment of Rs.19700/- alongwith interest besides compensation qua mental harassment etc. and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to OP No.1 and 2 received back served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 &and 2. As such opposite party No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.03.2017 of this Forum. Ld. counsel for OP no.3 has submitted that the upon inspection of the phone, it was observed by OP No.2 that the said handset was got damaged due to liquid ingression due to which warranty stood void. The cause of damage was external in nature and hence the only possible solution left with the OPs was chargeable service but the complainant refused for the same. That complainant is not entitled for any relief and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. That the main objection of the OP is to the effect that the handset presented to the respondent for repairs on 05.09.2016 was out of warranty period. The complainant has asserted that his mobile was repaired lastly on 10.08.2016 and it got the same defect. The handset was handed over to the respondent on 05.09.2016. This averments has been duly supported by the complainant vide his sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A and retail invoice/job sheet dated 10.08.2016 and 05.09.2016 Ex.C7 and Ex.C8. In reply to para no.2 of the complaint simply rebutted the averments of the complainant by taking the plea that it is a case of limited warranty which starts from its original purchases and on 05.09.2016 it was out of warranty. The complainant also placed on record copy of warranty terms i.e. Ex.R3. The fact remains that handset in question was repaired free of costs by the respondent on 10.08.2016. It was delivered to the complainant on 31.08.2016 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the handset was within warranty. The own terms and conditions of the respondent belies their stand where condition no.2 at page no.25 it is reproduced as under :
If Sony repairs or replaces the Product, the repair for the defect concerned, or the replaced Product shall be warranted for the remaining time of the original warranty period or for ninety(90) days from the date of repair, whichever is longer.
The complainant has claimed unequivocal terms that handset in question was not properly repaired when it was delivered to complainant on 31.08.2016 and it developed the same defect within a period of 4-5 days. Hence we hold that the handset was within warranty period of 90 days as per Ex.C7 and the objection of the respondent is turned up.
6. Accordingly the complaint succeeds and it is directed opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. to pay Rs.19700/- after deducting the depreciation of 20 i.e. to pay Rs.15760/-(Rupees fifteen thousand seven hundred sixty only) alongwith interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 30.01.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The mobile set in question is already in the possession of opposite parties.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal, Member.
