Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/315/2015

Rohit Kumar S/o Ramesh Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Duggal Mobile Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Dhiman

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 315 of 2015

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 27.08.2015

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 21.07.2016.

Rohit Kumar aged about 30 years son of Sh. Ramesh Chand, R/o Village Gobindpuri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. Duggal Mobile Centre, Shop No.4, Mela Singh Chowk, Near Yes Bank, Yamuna Nagar-135001 through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Manager/Incharge.
2. M/s Vipin Electronics SCO 13, Kamla Nagar, Backside of BSNL Exchange, Chhoti Line, Yamuna Nagar-135001, Authorized Service Centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Incharge.   
3. Sony India Private Limited, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director.

 

 

                                                                                                                                  …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Sanjay Dhiman, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Senjeev Singhal, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Rohit Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund the bill amount of the mobile in question i.e. 10,200/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase to till its actual realization and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile phone make Sony bearing EMEI No. 359860052821323 Model Xperia M for a sum of Rs. 10,200/- vide Bill No. 20147 dated 31.08.2014  (Annexure C-1) carrying warranty of one year from the Op No.1 manufactured by Op No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2. After few days of purchase, the mobile phone started creating problem in proper functioning as there was battery problem, hanging problem and network problem and on 26.09.2014, the complainant visited the OP No.2 who got checked the mobile phone and updated the software of mobile and told that the mobile phone will function properly but the problems were intact there as earlier. In the month of October, November 2014, the complainant visited OP No.3 several times but they every time upgraded version of software on the pretext that now it will work properly. Thereafter, when the mobile became completely out of order as having network problem switched off itself as well as receiver speaker problem, the complainant again visited the OP No.3 who kept the mobile phone on 10.07.2015 but this time with hard efforts of complainant got issued job sheet and in the evening hours, the Op No.3 handed over the mobile phone by saying that the defective receiver speaker has been changed but this mobile has a manufacturing defect and the mobile phone is required to be replaced with new one. The complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile set with new one but OP No.2 prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other. On 24.07.2015, when the complainant again visited with the same problem and requested the OP No.2 that the guarantee of the mobile phone is going to expire very soon, on which the OP No.2 stated that he needs not to worry because his mobile phone has manufacturing defect and defect was detected within warranty period. Lastly OP No.2 refused to replace the mobile phone and has prolonged the matter just to expire the warranty period. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as present complaint is absolutely frivolous and devoid of any cause of action and should be dismissed as an abuse of the process of this Forum. The complaint is totally vexatious, vindictive and frivolous. In fact there is no manufacturing defect in the handset and no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs to necessitate the present complaint. It has been submitted that the OP no.3 provides a warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and the OPs cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. It is necessary to mention that during the period of warranty, repair or replacement is the sole discretion of the opposite party No.3 alone. It has been submitted that the facts present in the complaint are false and denied. The details of mobiles phone are that on 03.05.2015 OP No.2  checked  mobile of the complainant with the complaint that Symptom: Software feature or icon missing, repair action: Saftware updated, delivered: 8.05.2015. On 10.07.2015, Ear Speaker problem/ Drops call, Repair Action: Part replaced (Ear speaker), delivered: 15.07.2015. It has been further submitted that the OPs have provided free of cost services to the complainant and the complainant has been a negligent user of the handset and has been putting a lot of stress on the handset not warranted under usage conditions as per the usage manual. It has been further submitted that as a goodwill gesture vide letter dated 19.10.2015, the OPs have already sent to the complainant an offer without prejudice to the present reply being filed to get the phone inspected in order to enable them to provide a resolution. The complainant has not replied to the letter. It has been further mentioned that product had received at their service centre on 10.07.2010 vide work Order No. W115071004441 for the symptom of “Ear Speaker Problem/ Drops call” Upon inspection of the handset by our service engineer it was observed that earspeaker is faulty and needs to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the handset. It has been further submitted that in case complainant facing any issues with the performance of the same, they would request the complainant to get the product inspected at their nearest Authorized Service Centre and allow them service and without inspection they shall not be able to conclude on this matter and in the absence of knowledge of facts shall not be liable for any consequences arising therefrom. On merit, controverted the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Bill No. 20147 dated 31.08.2014 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job sheet dated 10.07.2015 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of job sheet dated 24.07.2015 as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.    

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Priyank Chauhan as Annexure RW1/A and documents such as Photo copy of resolution dated 07.02.2014 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of terms and conditions as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of letter dated 19.10.2015 as annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile set of Rs. 10,200/- vide Bill No.20147 dated 31.08.2014 (Annexure C-1) from OP No.1. The version of the complainant is that he contacted to OP No.2 several times to get the repair of his defective mobile set and the same could not be repaired properly by the Ops but some problems remains as it is and lastly the OPs totally refused to accede the genuine request to repair the mobile set in question of the complainant. We have perused the job sheet dated 10.07.2015 (Annexure C-2) and job sheet dated 24.07.2015 (Annexure C-3) from which it is clearly evident that the mobile set in question was having problems in respect of network problem as well as other problems. Even from the perusal of the job sheet dated 10.07.2015 (Annexure C-2), it is also evident that mobile set in question was also earlier repaired by the service centre of OP No.2on 03.05.2015 vide its job sheet No. W115050300045. Further the OPs has also admitted this fact in their written statement in para No.5 that the complainant approached the service centre of Op No.2 on 03.05.2015 vide service job No. W115050300045 with the complaint of software features and Icon missing, repair action, software updated mobile set in question was delivered on 08.05.2015.Further it has also been admitted in the same para that again complainant visited the service centre vide job sheet No. W115071004441 dated 10.07.2015 with the problem of ear speaker problem, drop calls, repair action part replaced (Ear speaker) and the mobile set in question was returned on 15.07.2015. From the perusal of the contents of this para, it is clearly evident that mobile set in question remained with the service centre of the OPs for a couple of days i.e. for 5 days w.e.f. 03.05.2015 to 08.05.2015 for first time and for 5 days w.e.f. 10.07.2015 to 15.07.2015 for second time.

8.                     Although the complaint has not filed any expert report to prove that mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect but from the perusal of the job sheets as well as admission on the part of the OPs, it is clearly evident that complainant might have suffered mental agony and harassment which constitute the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, mobile set has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different modes of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer.  

 9.                    In the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs. 10,200/- to the complainant being cost of the mobile set, subject to deposit of old mobile set alongwith accessories, within a period of 45 days otherwise the OPs are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the defaulting period till its realization. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 21.07.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER