DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> CC.No.252 of 16.09.2009<br /> Decided on: 18.12.2009<br /> Parvesh Kumar Khurmi son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Khurmi, resident of Street No. 0, Ajit Road, Bathinda ………Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1 Dewan Sons, Sony Ericson (Advantage Store), 2026, The Mall,Bathinda, through its Proprietor.<br /> 2. Sony Ericson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor Dhaka House, 18/17 WEA-Karol Bagh, New Delhi, through its Managing Ditrector/Manager.<br /> 3. Sony Ericson Certified Centre M/s Allied Communications, First Floor, Shakti Complex, Above Dr. Ravinder Mittal, The Mall,Bathinda, through its Prop.<br /> 4. Foxconn India Pvt. Ltd., SIPCOT HYTECH SEZ, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Phase-II Chenai, Banglore National Highway,Sunguvarchatram,Sriperumbuthur, Kanchipuram District-602106 Tamil Nadu Inida, through its M.D./Manager. ….....Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> QUORUM<br /> Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> Present:<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Pardeep Sharma, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Shaminder Singh, counsel for opposite party No.1.<br /> Sh. Ashwani Garg, Prop. of opposite party No.3 in person.<br /> Opposite parties No.2&4 already exparte.<br /> ORDER<br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against the opposite parties that he has purchased one Sony Ericson mobile set Model F305 bearing IMEI No.352162030206587 vide Bill No.3304, for a sum of Rs. 7,835/-, on 01.04.2009, with one year warranty, from opposite party No.1. The Mobile Handset started giving problem, soon after its purchase. He put the mobile hand set for its charging and when checked the same, he found its screen in broken condition. He immediately approached opposite party No.1 personally, but opposite party No.1 did not pay any attention, rather misbehaved with him, and refused to get the handset for its repair, or to replace the handset. Since mobile set was in warranty period, he again requested opposite party No.1 to repair/replace the mobile set, but opposite party No.1 instead of replacing the mobile set in question, adopted adamant attitude, and did not repair the hand set. Complainant also got served a legal notice to the opposite parties, but opposite parties neither replied to the notice nor replaced the handset. Therefore, he pleaded that opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile handset, or in the alternative, be directed to refund the price of the mobile set with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of its purchase alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental tension, botheration, harassment and inconvenience that he has suffered, besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.<br /> 2. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.2&4 despite due service of notice, and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against them. Reply of opposite party No.4 was received by post. Stating therein that they were not direct and complete manufacturer of Sony Ericson model mobile phone of F 305 and they had not authorised any third party to sell the above said handset in the market. They have pleaded that they were not liable for any sale and warranty under the brand name of Sony Ericson India Pvt. Ltd.<br /> 3. Opposite parties No. 1&3 filed their separate replies raising objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi, or cause of action; complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, and suppressed the material facts, from this Forum, and complaint is false and frivolous.<br /> 4. On merits also, while denying all allegations of the complainant, opposite parties No. 1&3 admitted that the handset was purchased by the complainant, from opposite party No.1. They pleaded that the problem of breaking screen cannot be due to charging of battery, rather the same may be due to the mis-handling of mobile set, by the complainant. They also pleaded that complainant never visited the shop of opposite party No.1, after purchase of the mobile set, and service centre at Bathinda, and service centre is ready to provide the service to customer, and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 5. Complainant in order to prove his allegations, filed his own affidavits dated 17.11.09 and 16.09.09 Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, and also brought on record, photocopy of retail Invoice dated 01.04.09 Ex.C-3; copy of letter dated 01.06.09 Ex.C-4; copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C-5; copies of postal receipt Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9, and copy of legal notice dated 11.04.09 Ex.C-10.<br /> 6. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Sh. Ashish Bansal dated 26.11.09 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, photocopy of certificate dated 20.10.09 Ex.R-2. Opposite party No.3 filed affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Prop. dated 28.11.09 Ex.R-1.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 8. It is argued by the complainant’s counsel that screen of mobile set in question was broken while the set was being charged, by the complainant. Opposite parties No. 1&3 have argued that complainant never approached any of them since the purchase of mobile set. <br /> 9. It is next to impossible that screen of mobile set have any breakage in it during charging through charger. The mobile set in question was produced before the Forum. After due examination, it was found by us that the screen of the mobile set can be damaged only due to some external force, as the same was also damaged from the outer coverage. Its plastic body was also damaged such damage can only be possible by falling on the hard surface or by stricking against something hard to it.<br /> 10. In view of the above noted facts, we are of the view that this complaint is devoid of any merits. So, the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> 11. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI)<br /> 18.12.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />