Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 556.

                                                          Instituted on     : 14.11.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 05.02.2019.

Rajesh, age 45 years, son of Sh. Ramesh Lal, Resident of H.No. 1227/14, Mahabir Colony, Rohtak.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1        Concept Technology, Beryl Kolte Patil Downtown, Near Victorious Kidss School, EON IT Park Road, Kharadi, Pune, Maharastra through Prop/Partner/Authorized person (Seller of Mobile).

2        Sony Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Office-A-31, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road-New Delhi, through its Managing Director (Manufacturer of Mobile).

3        Sai Security Systems, Near Malabar Guest House, Green Road-Rohtak-124001, through Prop/Partner/Authorized Person (Service Centre).

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Harinder Rana, Advocate for OPs.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant has been gifted a mobile set which was purchased on 16.01.2016 by the brother-in-law of the complainant of Sony Experia C5 Ultra Dual SIM 16GB (White) bearing IMEI No. 352192072817926 for an amount of Rs.24,829/- manufactured by OP No. 2 and OP No. 1 its authorized dealer and OP No. 3 is its service center. It is alleged that the said mobile phone started giving problems of network i.e. mobile network not available in spite of proper network, heating issue while using any app, call auto disconnect, hanging issue while calling and while using app, no incoming call being received inspite of proper network, since its purchase and was taken to opposite party No. 3 several times, but with no result and they after making adjustment, returned back the mobile set without issuing job card. That OP No. 3 asked the complainant to make payment of Rs.5500/- and who in turn will provide swap set, as the said mobile set was having manufacturing defect and thus complainant was having no option except to make payment of Rs.5500/- and got swap set bearing Swap Model No.F5122 Swap Sr. No. 358099074492224 and assured that set is free from all types of defects. That the alleged swap set was also defective and the complainant visited the authorized service centre  several times including 02.02.2018, 22.03.2018, 23.05.2018, 17.07.2018, 27.09.2018 and lastly on   16.10.2018 with the same complaint i.e. No Power, but this time complainant insisted job card and thus OP No. 3 issued job card and for which they charged Rs.120/-. That in spite of several visits and repair work being carried out by OP No.3, defect in mobile set could not be rectified. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.24,829/- + Rs.5500/- = Rs.30,329/- alongwith the interest @ 24% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that after enjoying the said handset for 1 year and 7 months, the complainant approached the service center on 30.08.2017 raising an issue with touch problem in said phone. Since the warranty period was already expired, therefore, an estimated cost of repair action was shared with the complainant and he approved the estimate. It is further submitted that the handset was duly replaced and the complainant after proper checking and inspection accepted the same. Almost 14 months later, the complainant again approached the service center on 16.10.2018 raising an issue of “No Power” in the said handset, but the warranty period of said handset was already expired long back. Despite the same, OP No. 3 duly inspected the handset and after that PCB was found faulty and the same needs to be replaced. But the warranty was expired, therefore, an estimated cost of repair was shared with the complainant. But the complainant instead of approving the estimate straightway refused to go for the same and started raising unreasonable demands. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed.

3.                          Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.01.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.01.2019.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1, the mobile set was purchased by the relative of the complainant on 18.01.2016 for Rs.24829/-. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the mobile set in question was defective from the very beginning. As per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 31.08.2017 there was touch problem in the mobile set and the opposite party replaced the set with a swap set Model no F5122 after charging Rs.5500/- from the complainant. But the replaced set was also defective as per report Ex.C4 and as per job sheet dated 16.10.2018 there was problem of ‘No Power’ in the alleged set but the same could not be removed by the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and they are liable to refund the price of mobile set.  As per para no.1 of the complaint filed by the complainant the mobile set in question is already in the possession of service centre which is not specifically denied by the opposite parties.

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set amounting to Rs.24829/- plus Rs.5500/- charged for the replaced set i.e. total Rs.30329/-(Rupees thirty thousand three hundred twenty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.11.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

7.                          Copy of this of and the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

05.02.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.