BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
Complaint No. 16 of 2015
Date of Institution: 2.2.2015
Date of final order: 3.3.2016
Arun Kumar s/o Sh. Shish Pal Singh r/o1389 Urban Estate, Jind, Haryana.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Bhagwati Electronics-135 Municipal Market (through proprietor/partner) at Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05 tel. No.011-25801299&011-25805100 and Mob. 07870290460.
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (through Manager/concerned officer) having its office at A-31,Mohan Co-operative Ind. Estate, Mathura road, New Delhi-110044.
- Sonipat Services sony authorized service centre (through Manager/concerned person) SCO-54, P.W.D. BSR stone near PNB main Branch, Jind, Haryana-126102.
…..Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Presiding Member.
Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh. Vinod Singh Adv. for complainant.
Opposite parties already ex-parte.
ORDER:
The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had purchased Sony X-peria Z-ultra mobile phone for a sum of Rs.47,000/- vide bill No.31351 dated 18.3.2013 from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has given one year warranty of the
Arun Kumar Vs. Bhagwati Electronics etc.
…2…
above said mobile set. The opposite party No.2 is authorized service centre. The above said mobile set giving some problem i.e. battery problem and battery do not work properly. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and told about the problem of mobile set, the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to remove the defect from opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre. The opposite party No.2 repaired the mobile set of complainant several times but the defect was not removed by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party has changed the previous mobile phone and replaced another mobile set of the same company on 3.1.2014. Thereafter the new mobile phone has some problem i.e. battery problem and do not work properly. The complainant again visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and told about the problem of new mobile set, the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to remove the defect from opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre. The opposite party No.2 repair the new mobile set of complainant several times but the defect was not removed by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party i.e. customer service centre has replaced the mobile phone and issued a new phone Sony-X-Peria for a sum of Rs.42,000/- but the complainant earlier purchased the mobile phone of Rs.47,000/-. The opposite party has not received the bill or refund the remaining amount. Again the mobile phone has facing hanging problem and complainant visited the service centre of opposite party on 22.5.2014. The complainant visited the service centre of opposite party No.2 several times regarding the
Arun Kumar Vs. Bhagwati Electronics etc.
…3…
defect of mobile phone but the defect was not removed by the opposite party No.2. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to refund the cost of mobile phone, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice issued to opposite party No.3 received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No.3. Hence, the opposite party No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 11.3.2015.The opposite parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 22.4.2015.
3. No evidence is present on behalf of complainant despite last opportunity. Hence, the evidence of complainant was closed by court order dated 16.7.2015.
4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of the complainant and perused the record placed on file. The opposite parties are already ex-parte. The Ld. Counsel of complainant argued that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant started giving problem just after the purchase and the complaint was reported to the opposite parties. After repair the mobile phone again started giving problem. After that the phone was changed with some other phone and the same also started giving problem. The Ld. Counsel of the complainant averred that the mobile phone has not been replaced/repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. In our view the deficiency in service on the part of the
Arun Kumar Vs. Bhagwati Electronics etc.
…4…
opposite parties is established. The complaint is allowed in the interest of justice. The opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile phone to the satisfaction of the complainant. The order be complianced within one month from the date of order. The copies of orders be supplied to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 3.3.2016
Presiding Member,
Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind
Arun Kumar Vs. Bhagwati Electronics etc.
Present: Sh. Vinod Singh Adv. for complainant.
Opposite parties already ex-parte.
Arguments heard. To come up on 3.3.2016 for orders.
Presiding Member,
Member DCDRF, Jind
29.2.2016
Present: Sh. Vinod Singh Adv. for complainant.
Opposite parties already ex-parte.
Order announced, vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Presiding Member,
Member DCDRF, Jind
3.3.2016
