Punjab

Sangrur

CC/209/2015

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chhabra Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ashish Kumar Grover

10 Jun 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Complaint no. 209                                                                                    

                                                          Instituted on:   15.04.2015

                                                          Decided on:      10.06.2015

 

Jaswinder Singh son of Shri Gurwinder Singh resident of # 12/638, Shekhupura Mohalla, Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

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

2.     Sankalp Electronics, Opp. K.T. Royal Hotel, Nankaina Chownk, Sangrur through its Prop./Partner.

3.     Sony India Pvt. Limited  A-31, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi through its M.D./ CEO.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Ashish Grover,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO. 1   :      Exparte                     

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.2&3:  Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate                   

 

Quorum

                            

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Jaswinder Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one mobile phone model Sony D-5322 T-2  Ultra Purple from the OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.23500/- under invoice number 4765 dated 09.06.2014 and  OPs had given  one year warranty from  the date of its purchase.  From the very beginning the mobile set is not working properly. The  mobile set in question was hanged  number of times  and finally on 16.03.2015 the same again hanged completely. The complainant visited the office of OP No.2 who issued job sheet regarding the defects in the said mobile set. Again mobile set started giving same problem on 20.03.2015, for which OP No.2 was approached who issued another job sheet regarding the same problems but in the job sheet the defect  regarding auto switch off  was not mentioned by the OP No.2 . The OP No.2 repaired the same but it did not work properly and the complainant took the  mobile set back under protest being unsatisfied.  On 26.03.2015, the mobile phone stopped working completely by auto switched off.  The complainant tried to switch on the mobile phone but the display of the same was hanged on the Sony Logo.  The complainant again approached the OP No.2 who again issued job  sheet  but this time the OP No.2 told the complainant that the  mobile set is having a manufacturing defect  and showed his inability to repair the same. The expert also disclosed that the mobile phone has a manufacturing defect.  The complainant requested the OPs No.1 to 3 to replace the mobile set  with new one as it is within warranty period but the OPs refused to replace the same. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund the purchase amount  of the said mobile phone i.e. Rs. 23500/ -along  with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             After receipt of complaint, notices were sent to the OPs but no one appeared for the OPs and as such OPs were proceeded exparte on 25.05.2015. However, when the case was at the stage of final arguments on 09.06.2015, Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate has appeared and filed only power of attorney on behalf of OPs No.2 and 3. 

3.             In support of his case the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed his exparte evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file, it reveals that the complainant purchased one Sony D-5322 T-2 Ultra Purple mobile set manufactured by OP No.3 from the OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.23500/- vide invoice number 4765 dated 09.06.2014 which is Ex.C-1 on record.  It is the specific case of the complainant that from the very beginning the mobile set in question started giving problems of hanging and auto switched off, for which he visited the office of OP No.2 number of times but the OP No.2 despite his best efforts failed to repair the same then the complainant requested them to replace the mobile set in question  as it was under warranty but they did not pay any heed to his request.

5.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No.2 and 3  and thoroughly perusing the entire documents produced on record by the complainant, we find that the complainant has  produced copies of job sheets which are Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 on record which show that the mobile set in question was having hanging and auto switched off problem  and the set  was also within the warranty period.  The complainant has also  produced report of an expert namely Kamalpreet Singh Proprietor of Kamal Communications,  Prem Basti Road, Sangrur,  Ex.C-9, in which he opined that  after thorough checking  and using the said mobile set  for 3/ 4 days  and as per his knowledge  he found that  the mobile set is  giving the said problems due to manufacturing defect in the mobile phone and the said problems are not curable one.  To corroborate the opinion of the expert, his affidavit  Ex.C-8 and  certificate Ex.C-9 have also been produced by the complainant.  The OPs did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte.   At the  time of arguments, Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate has appeared for OPs No.2 and 3 and argued the case but we feel that in the absence  of documentary evidence on behalf of the OPs the version in arguments  cannot be appropriated.  As such, the case of the complainant has gone unrebutted.

6.             So, in view of the facts stated above, we feel that the complainant has successfully proved his case.  Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in dispute of the complainant with new one of the same model with fresh warranty  or in the alternative to refund the purchase amount  of the same i.e. Rs.23500/- (after receiving the mobile in dispute from the complainant).  We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.10000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

June 10, 2015.

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)       ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)   

Member               Member                       President

 

 

BBS/-