Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/461/2014

Harish Bhola S/o Ram Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arun Eletronics - Opp.Party(s)

Nirman Kapoor

17 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                               Complaint No…461  of 2014.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 10.11.2014

                                                                                               Date of decision: 17.11.2015.

 

Harish Bhola aged 42 years son of Sh. Ram Lal Bhola, resident of House No. 1535/2, Shiv Shankar Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Arun Electronics, ( authorized dealer) Pyara Chowk, Opp. Shivaji Market, Yamuna Nagar.
2. Ambey Electronic Care Authorized Sony Service Centre, Chhotti Line, Near Janglan Wali Mata Mandir, Yamuna Nagar.
3. Ambey Electronic Service Sony Authorized Service Centre, DS-14, Jail Land, Sector-01, HUDA Market, Ambala.
4. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi.
5. Sony India Private Limited Head Office, 9A, 10^th Floor, Sector 25A, Gurgaon.    

 

                                                                                                     …opposite parties.

             

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Nirman Kapoor, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               OPs No.1 to 3 already ex-parte.   

               Sh. Anil Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.4 & 5.    

             

 

ORDER

 

1                      Complainant Harish Bhola  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 the brand new one of the same make and specification and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of causing physical and mental harassment and economic loss by way of selling the defective mobile sets alongwith litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased one mobile phone Sony Xperia T-2 Ultra (Black). Model No. D5322, bearing IMEI No. 351867061245400 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 24250/- vide Invoice No. 22503 dated 29.3.2014 (Annexure C-1). The aforesaid mobile was carrying a warranty of one year in all respect from the date of its purchase and after a few months of purchase the said mobile set started creating trouble and it would not get charged properly even after connecting it with the charger for several hours and in order to solve the problem he contacted to Op No.2 on 1.9.2014 and deposited the mobile set with OP No.2 for eradication of charging problem and in this regard a job sheet bearing No. W114090105008 (Annexure C-2) was prepared and copy of the same was handed over to complainant and stated that his grievances would be redressed within 10 days from the date of service job sheet i.e. 1.9.2014. After the period of 10 days and further waiting sufficient time the complainant did not get any response then he made a contact with OP No.2 who disclosed that they had sent the mobile to OP No.3 for removal of defect and he enquired about the progress of his complaint but no satisfactory reply was given rather it was disclosed that his screen was broken and would be repaired shortly but he shocked to note this fact as when he had deposited his handset with service centre it was not having any broken screen, it was only having a charging problem. The complainant made several communications including telephonic conversation and e-mails and made several requests to OPs to redress his grievances but they did not accommodate the problems of complainant. Lastly complainant sent a registered AD legal notice through his counsel on 26.9.2014 to OP No.1 to 5 but OPs No.2 & 5 refused to take the legal notice whereas remaining OPs received the legal notice but inspite of receiving the said notice they did not give reply till date and the mobile set of the complainant has not been handed over to him. In this way, the OPs are deficient and negligent in providing proper service and unfair trade practice as the defective mobile set has been sold to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 failed to appear despite service through registered post, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.12.2014. OPs No.4 & 5 filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is vexatious, baseless and is more of an abuse of due process of law and on merit it has been stated that the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of distributing an marketing of mobile phones and other electronic goods under the brand name of Sony and it holds an impeccable position in the mobile phone industry in India. It has been mentioned that the liability of OPs lies strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it on its products and OPs cannot be held liable for claims falling outside the scope of warranty. Copy of warranty terms as Annexure R-2. Clause 3 of the terms and 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 mentioned that in the present case, the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 1.9.2014 that is after using the handset for more than four months without any problem whatsoever, with the alleged problem of “phone dead” with respect to the handset. It has been further submitted that upon inspection of handset by the service engineer, it was found that the PCB of the handset was required to be replaced. Accordingly, the PCB of the handset was replaced by the service engineers. It has been further mentioned that upon replacement of PCB, when the handset was turned on by the service engineer, a crack was noticed on the screen of the handset and as per the warranty terms agreed between the parties, any damage caused to the handset by way of external damage renders the warranty void.   The service engineer informed the complainant that the repair of the handset would be carried out on a chargeable basis and accordingly provided an estimate for the necessary repairs. However, the complainant refused to approve the repair estimate and kept insisting that the handset be repaired free of costs. It has been further mentioned that Sony India Pvt. Ltd. has sent a written communication dated 14.11.2014 to the complainant reiterating that the repairs in case of a handset has been damaged by external cause is carried out on a chargeable basis since the warranty is rendered void. Copy of letter is Annexure R-3. The complainant has not approved the repair estimate provided to him and has remained adamant on his demand of free of cost repair of the hand set. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed by way of the present complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CA and documents such as Photo copy of bill as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job card as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of warranty certificate as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of registered AD legal notice dated 26.9.2014 as Annexure C-4, Photo copies of postal receipts as Annexure C-5, Photo copies of Acknowledgment as Annexure C-6 and C-7, Photo copies of complaint against Ambay Electronic Services Ambala and Yamuna Nagar as Annexure C-8 & C-9 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.4 & 5 tendered into evidence affidavits of Priyank Chauhan as Annexure RW/A & RW/B and documents such as Photo copy of  True copy of resolution approved by the Board of Directors of Sony India ltd. as Annexure R.1, Photo copy of important information as Annexure R.2, Photo copy of reply to legal notice as Annexure R.3.

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

6.                     From the perusal of Annexure C-1(purchase bill) , it is clear that the complainant had purchased mobile set (manufactured by OP No.4 & 5 i.e. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.) from the OP No.1 vide invoice No. 22503 dated 29.3.2014 for a sum of Rs. 24250/-. Further it is also not disputed that complainant first time lodged his complaint on 1.9.2014 i.e. after a period of 5 months and deposited his mobile set with OP No.2 for eradication of charging problem and service job sheet bearing No. W114090105008 was prepared (Annexure C-2). From the perusal of job sheet it is clear that only charging problem has been lodged by the complainant with the Service Centre and set has been shown in warranty period. Further it has been mentioned in the job card that mobile set in question was found as dead. Further the OPs has admitted in their written statement that upon inspection of the hand set by the service engineer, it was found that the PCB of the hand set was required to be replaced. Accordingly, the PCB (Power Code Board) of the hand set was replaced by the service engineers.

7.                     The only plea of the OPs No.4 & 5 is that, when the hand set was turned on by the service engineer after replacing the PCB (Power Code Board) a crack was noticed on the screen of the hand set and as per warranty terms agreed between the parties, any damages caused to the hand set by way of external damagers render the warranty avoid. The service engineer informed the complainant that the repair of the hand set would be carried out on a chargeable basis and accordingly provided an estimate for the necessary repair. However, complainant refused to approve the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant hotly argued that when he handed over the mobile set in question on account of charging problem to OP No.2 i.e. Collection Service Centre at Yamuna Nagar of OP No.3, at that time there was no such type of breakage in the screen of the mobile and if there was any breakage it can be seen by naked eye. So, the version of OPs No.4 & 5 is totally false and manipulated. If there was any damage then it can be due to mishandling of OPs No.2 & 3 and prayed for directing the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with new one.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, it is not disputed that PCB (Power Code Board) of the mobile set in question was replaced by the service centre of OPs No.4 & 5 which has been admitted by the OPs No.4 & 5 in para No.5 of their written statement. We have minutely perused the job card (Annexure C-2) and found that in the column of consumer complaint only charging problem has been mentioned and mobile set (unit) has been shown as dead. This job sheet Annexure C-2 has been issued by OP No.3 and at the time of issuance of this job sheet no problem regarding any breakage has been mentioned in it. If there was any breakage in the screen then it can be seen by naked eye. Moreover, it is admitted by the OPs No.4 & 5 that mobile in question has been collected by OP No.2 i.e. Collection Centre at Yamuna Nagar and the same was sent to OP No.3 Service Centre at Ambala by them and repair whatsoever i.e. changing of PCB was done at Ambala in the absence of complainant. No affidavit on behalf of OP No.2 and 3 has filed to prove the contention mentioned in the reply filed by OPs No. 4 & 5 that the mobile set in question was not mishandled by them or the screen in question was not broken during the repair or replacing the PCB by them. Even the OPs No.1 to 3 not bothered to contest the complaint and remained ex-parte. Hence, we have no option except to accept the complaint of complainant.

10.                   In the above noted circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 to 5 for not providing proper services to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for relief.

11.                   Resultantly we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 to 5 to repair the mobile phone of complainant and set it in proper working order free of costs and also to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. 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. 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: 17.11..2015.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.