Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/34/2015

Arun Bajaj S/o Gela Ram Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arun Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Chander Shekar Sachdeva

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                               Complaint No… 34  of 2015.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 28.1.2015

                                                                                               Date of decision: 7.9.2015

Arun Bajaj son of Shri Gela Ram Bajaj, resident of House No. B-9, 1338-A, Vishnu Nagar, Jagadhri-Workshop, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Arun Electronics, Pyara Chowk, Opp. Shivaji Market, Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor.    
2. Ambey Electronics Service, DS-14, First Floor, Jail Land, Sector-01, HUDA Market, Ambala through its authorized person.
3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its C.E.O./ Managing Director.    

 

                                                                                                                                                                                    …Opposite parties.

             

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Yashpal Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               OPs already ex-parte.   

             

 

ORDER

 

1                      Complainant Arun Bajaj  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the mobile set with new one or to refund the sale price of mobile phone i.e. Rs. 21,300/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization and also to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment monetary loss, frustration, in-convenience, suffered by him due to negligence and deficiency in service on their part and also to pay Rs. 8800/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased one mobile phone Sony Xperia SP C5302, bearing EMEI No. 35581005-125602-5 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 21,300/- vide Bill No. 22615 dated 6.4.2014. The aforesaid mobile was carrying a warranty of one year in all respect from the date of its purchase and the said mobile did not work properly from the very beginning and just after some times the said mobile set started giving problem of hanging. The complainant approached the OP No.1 and disclosed about the defect and on the asking of the complainant, the OP No.1 updated the software of the mobile phone and handed over the same to him. Thereafter, the said mobile phone again started problem of hanging and battery problem, the complainant again approached the Op No.1 and disclosed about the fact, on which Op No.1 asked the complainant to approach customer care centre, Yamuna Nagar for removal of problem. The complainant approached the Customer Care Centre at Chhoti Line Yamuna Nagar on 17.1.2015, who sent the mobile to OP No.2, who after inspection, told that the mobile phone has become out of warranty period, vide service Job Sheet No. W115011703907 dated 17.1.2015. The complainant disclosed the Op No.2 that the said mobile phone has been purchased by him on 6.4.2014 from OP No.1 and the same is within warranty period but the Op No.2 openly stated that the IMEI number of the said mobile phone is registered since 8.11.2013 and also disclosed that there is defect of software and also battery problem, which require replacement and for that purpose, the OP No.2 demanded charges thereof. Since the Op No.1 by playing fraud upon the complainant has sold old mobile phone to him and has neither replaced the mobile phone nor returned the sale price to the complainant, the OPs have committed deficiency and negligence in service as well as played an unfair trade practice,  and has caused mental agony and harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs failed to appear despite service through registered post and as such they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.3.2015. 

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill dated 6.4.2014 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Job Sheet dated 17.1.2015 as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant..  

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. From the perusal of Annexure C-1, it is clear that the complainant had purchased mobile set (manufactured by OP No.3 i.e. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.) from the OP No.1 vide invoice No. 22615 dated 6.4.2014 for a sum of Rs. 21,300/- and as alleged by the complainant, the same became defective from the very beginning and the defects could not be rectified by the Ops despite various efforts.  Further, the complainant alleged that the mobile set was having problem of hanging and battery and in this regard he tendered job sheet as Annexure C-2 issued by OP No.2 i.e. Service Centre. As per report of Authorized Service Centre (Annexure C-2) there was battery problem only in the mobile set in question. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that in the job card OP No.2 has shown the mobile set is out of warranty as the IMEI number of the said mobile phone is registered since 8.11.2013 in their record but the complainant failed to file any documentary evidence regarding this. However, from this job card it is clear that the complainant has faced the problem due to defect in the mobile set. The complainant has to file the present complaint before this Forum for redressal of his grievances. The complainant contacted OP No.1 several times and requested him to refund the full price of the aforesaid mobile set but they totally refused to listen to the genuine request of complainant.  Moreover, the version of the complainant goes unrebutted as opposite parties have failed to defend their case.

6.                     In the present complaint, complainant has also suffered  a lot of problem on various dates as is clear from Annexure C-2 Job sheet dated 17.1.2015 as in the job sheet it has clearly been mentioned that complainant’s complaint was previously attended by Ambey Electronics Service vide job sheet No. W114072605914 dated 26.7.2014.

7.                     The aim of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better and all round Protection to the consumers and this is the only law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to redress complaints arisen from it and it also provides effective safeguards to the consumers against different type of exploitation such as defective goods, unsatisfactory or deficient service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, mobile set has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different models of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer. 

8.                     After going through the above noted facts, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3.  So, in the interest of justice, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to put the mobile of the complainant in working condition free of costs and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses..  Order be complied within 30 days from the date of order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copy 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: 7.9.2015.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.