Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/245/2015

Gurdeep Rana S/o Dhoom Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arun Eletronics - Opp.Party(s)

Anuj Sharma

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

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

                                                                                    Complaint No. 245 of 2015.

                                                                                    Date of institution:21.07.2015.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 21.11.2016.

   Gurdeep Rana aged about 36 years son of Sh. DhoomRana resident of village & Post Office Tigra, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Arun Electronics, Pyara Chowk, Opp. Shivaji Market, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/ Partner.
2. Vipan Electronics, SCO 13-A, Kamla Nagar, Behind BSNL Exchange, Chhoti Line, Yamuna Nagar through its Partner/Proprietor.
3. Sony India, A-31, Mathura Road, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                   …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Anuj Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

             Sh. Sanjeev Singhal, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Gurdeep Rana has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 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 also 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 Xperia Z3, Model No. D6653 Black bearing IMEI No. 35509806-0361128 for an amount of Rs. 48,500/- from the OP No.1 vide bill No. 25089 dated 06.11.2014 manufactured by OP No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2. In the last week of June, 2015, the complainant faced some problem of hanging and touch of the upper portion of the said mobile phone stopped working. Upon this, on the advice of the OP No.1, complainant visited the OP No.2 and handed over his mobile phone who asked the complainant to collect the same after a week and issued a job sheet. When after a week, the complainant went to collect his mobile set from OP No.2, the defects of the said mobile phone was as it is and the official of Op No.2 told that mobile phone is having manufacturing defect. After that, complainant contacted the OP No.1 and requested him to replace the same but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as the present complaint is absolutely false and frivolous and devoid of any merit. A user’s manual is always provided to the customer of the product which enlists the do’s and don’ts. In case, the same are not followed the mobile handset of any product shall suffer due to mishandling. Since the mobile set was in the custody and possession of the complainant, it is he who has failed to maintain the same in good condition; the OP No.3 company is an international level company and enjoying an excellent market reputation; it is settled proposition of law that whenever a party alleges any manufacturing defect, the same has to be proved with an expert report or opinion as required under section 13 of the C.P. Act. The true facts are that complainant purchased mobile set in question for Rs. 48,500/- on 06.11.2014 and on 25.06.2015, vide work order No. W115062504231 dated 25.06.2015, made a complaint that touch screen does not work. On inspection of the hand set, it was found that the handset was damaged due to external impact wherein the warranty of the subject handset had become void and repairs if any shall only be on chargeable basis. The complainant refused to get repairs done and insisted only on free of costs repairs. Hence, the set was returned to the            complainant on 28.06.2015. However, as a goodwill gesture, being our valued      customer, we offered two options to the complainant “(i) exchange of your unit with factory refurbished unit of XPERIA Z3 at 50% of MRP (ii) Exchange with new unit of XPERIA Z3 at 80% of MRP”. The offer letter is attached herewith as Annexure D but the complainant refused the same and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of invoice No. 25089 dated 6.11.2014 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job sheet dated 25.06.2015 as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Priyank Chauhan, as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of resolution dated 07.02.2014 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of photographs of screen as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of Important information/ terms and conditions as Annexure R-3, Photo copy offer letter dated 16.09.2015 as Annexure R-4, photo copy of expert report of Engineer as Annexure R-5  and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     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.

7.                     It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone make EPERIA A3 Sony Model No. D6653 Black on 06.11.2014 vide invoice No. 25089 for a sum of Rs.48,500/- from OP No.1  which is duly evident from the photo copy of bill Annexure C-1, manufactured by OP No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2.

8.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that the mobile set in question was having a manufacturing defect as the upper portion of touch screen of the mobile set in question was not working properly but this plea of the complainant is not tenable as the complainant purchased this mobile phone on 06.11.2014 whereas as per admission of the complainant himself in para No.3 that he lodged his first complaint with the service centre of the Ops in the last week of 2015, meaning thereby that after a period of 7-8 months after its purchasing. Moreover, it is not disputed that the upper portion of the touch screen of the mobile set in question was not working as the Ops have admitted in their written statement in para No.F of the preliminary objections that a complaint was lodged vide work order No. W11506250423 on dated 25.06.2015. As per the version of the Ops they offered two options to the complainant either replace his mobile with factory refurbished unit of XPERIA Z3 of 50% of the MRP or with new unit of EXPERIA Z-3 at 80% of the MRP. After going through this offer, we feel that these options have been given by the Ops just to avoid its liability to repair the mobile set in question free of costs during the currency of warranty period whereas from the perusal of this option, it is clearly evident that OPs company wants to replace the mobile set after charging the 80% of the cost of the mobile which clearly shows the malafide intention of the Ops Company because the cost of the mobile set cannot be reduced up to 80% within a period of 6-7 months.

9.                     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 model 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. 

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops as the complainant might have suffered hardship for some days due to defects in the mobile in question due to one reason or other and the complainant has filed the present complaint during the currency of the warranty period. As such, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant.

11                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops to refund a sum of Rs. 38,800/- after deducting 20% depreciation of billed amount of Rs. 48,500/-, subject to deposition of old mobile set alongwith accessories, within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulting period. Order be complied within a period of 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. 21.11.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                    MEMBER