Punjab

Sangrur

CC/919/2015

Husan Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chhabra Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ashish Grover

17 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  919

                                                Instituted on:    28.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       16.02.2016

 

 

 

Husan Bansal son of Shri Kishore Chand Bansal C/o Bansal Medical Store, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Chhabra Communication, Opp. Bus Stand, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

2.             Sankalp Electronics, Opp. KT Royal Hotel, Nankiana Chowk, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

3.             Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, Mohal Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its MD/CEO.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :               Shri G.S.Toor, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Husan Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile set Sony Xperia Z-3 Compact bearing IMEI number 3551890604415314 from OP number 1 vide invoice number 7141 dated 15.10.2014 for Rs.41,000/- which was having one year warranty.  It is further averred in the complaint that the mobile set in question was not working properly from the very date of its purchase and it became dead on 26.1.2015, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 on 27.1.2015, who after examination the mobile set told that there is no power and is dead and the same is required to be sent to the company for replacement. As such, the complainant handed over the mobile set to OP number 2, who issued job sheet number W115012703114 dated 27.1.2015, and as such the complainant approached OP number 2 on 4.2.2015, who delivered the swapped mobile set of the same model with IMEI number 355189060787043. It is further averred that the replaced mobile set also did not work properly and the mobile set in question became dead on 26.8.2015, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 on the same day.  It is further averred that the OP number 2 after checking the mobile set told that the mobile set suffers from the same problem and returned the mobile set to the complainant without any action. It is further told that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set and the mobile set requires to be checked from some other engineer.  It is stated that nothing was done by the OP despite repeated visits of the complainant to OP number 2. Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.41,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was proceeded exparte on 8.10.2015.

 

3.             In their joint reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up that as per the records of the company the complainant purchased the mobile set on 15.10.2014 vide invoice number 7141 from OP number 1 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications along with the detailed explanation. It is admitted that after almost three months from the date of its purchase the complainant approached OP number 2 on 27.1.2015 and apprised about the dead mobile set and  OP number 2 took prompt action and the mobile set was replaced with a new fresh mobile set on 4^th Feb 2015 and new memo/invoice was issued.   It is admitted further that after enjoying the hand set for six months, the complainant again approached OP number 2 on 26.8.2015 that the similar issue is still persisting with the hand set, but this time the complainant approached OP number 2 without bill and the mobile set was in dead condition and OP number 2 requested the complainant to hand over the mobile set for checking, but the complainant refused to do so and the complainant insisted for replacement of the mobile set in question. It is admitted that the complainant had concealed the material facts from this Forum and lastly has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill, Ex.C-2 copy of job card, Ex.C-3 swapped mobile invoice,  Ex.C-4 affidavit, Ex.C-5 expert report, Ex.C-6 affidavit of expert and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 and 3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 affidavit along with Ex.RW1/6 to Ex.RW6/6 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-5 is a copy of the invoice dated 15.10.2014 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.41,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant and the Ops that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became dead on 27.01.2015, which was replaced with a new mobile set and the replaced mobile set was delivered to the complainant on 4.2.2015 vide swapped invoice dated 4.2.2015, a copy of which on record  is Ex.C-3.  Further present case of the complainant is that the swapped mobile set also suffered with the same problem of becoming dead, which arose on 26.8.2015 and  as such the complainant approached OP number 2, who advised the complainant to hand over the mobile set in question for repairs, but the complainant insisted to replace the same with a new one as the same problem arose in the mobile set on the ground that the problem is of manufacturing defect in the mobile set .  Further to support his contention, the complainant has also produced on record the expert report dated 27.8.2015, Ex.C-5 of Shri Damanjit Singh of Singh Connectivity, wherein it is stated that on 27.8.2015 the complainant came to him for checking of the mobile set Sony Xperia Z3 Compact bearing IMEI number 355189060787043 which was totally dead which as per his opinion is due to manufacturing defect.  Further the report is also supported by the affidavit of Shri Damanjit Singh, Ex.C-6, which is also on record.  On the other hand, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to rebut the expert report or that the mobile set in question does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that it is a clear cut case of supply of defective mobile set to the complainant, which is beyond repairs.   As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.41,000/- being the cost of the mobile set, however, subject to returning of the mobile set in question along with all the accessories thereof by the complainant to the OPs.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.2500/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 16, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member