Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/2

Naresh Pathak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Elecroworld - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Parvinder Singla

09 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

 

                                        Complaint No. CC/15/2 of 02.01.2015.

                                        Decided on:        09.03.2015.

 

Naresh Pathak, resident of Kothi No.2, Chahel Otrs. Road, Behind Modi College, Patiala-147001.

                                                                            Complainant

                                                Versus

Electroworld Dharampura Bazar, Adjoining Dena Bank, Patiala through its Incharge/Managing Director.

                                                                            Opposite  party.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh. D.R. Arora, President.

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member.

                                      Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member.

 

Present:                          Sh. Parvinder Singla counsel for the complainant. 

                                       Opposite party ex-parte.

                                        

ORDER

 

D.R. ARORA:

1.       The complainant had purchased one mobile hand set make Sony Xperia-Hset T 2 bearing IMEI no.351867066350809 for Rs.23,300/- from the O.P on 15.08.2014. From the day one, the mobile hand set had not been working properly. The complainant visited the O.P many a times so as to resolve the problem. The O.P referred the matter through email to the company for replacement of the hand set as there was a technical defect in the hand set and could not be rectified but it was disclosed by the Sales Executive of the O.P that the price will be refunded on the receipt of advice from the company.

2.       The matter was lingered on by the O.P under one or the other pretext and ultimately, the O.P refused to replace the mobile hand set or to refund the price thereof.

3.       It is also the plea taken up by the complainant that on 05.09.2014, the complainant had received the message from the service centre that the defect can be rectified but the complainant refused to get the same done and at this the O.P assured that the hand set would be replaced in case he is not interested to get the same repaired.  Again on 04.11.2014, the complainant visited the O.P regarding the replacement of the hand set with new one but the Sales Executive returned the hand set having disclosed that the hand set had been sent to the authorized service centre thrice and every time the hand set was found having the problem. The complainant was advised to collect the hand set with the assurance that a time of one week was needed for the replacement of the hand set with new one after getting the approval from the company. The hand set was returned to the complainant against signatures.

4.       The complainant again visited the O.P on 10.11.2014 but he was misbehaved by the Sales Executive and who flatly refused to replace the mobile hand set. The complainant got the O.P served with a legal notice on 14.11.2014, sent through registered post. Accordingly, the complainant has brought this complaint against the O.P under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the O.P to replace the mobile hand set with new one or to refund the price thereof with interest; to pay him Rs.25,000/- by way of  compensation on account of harassment and mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

5.       The O.P despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.

6.       In his ex-parte evidence, the complainant produced in evidence Ex. CA, his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6 and his counsel closed the evidence.

7.       The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through evidence on record.

8.       Ex. C5 is the copy of retail invoice dated 15^th August, 2014 with regard to the complainant having purchased one mobile hand set make Sony Xperia-Hset T2 Ultra Black bearing IMEI no.351867066350809 for Rs.23,300/- from the O.P.

9.       Ex. C2 is the copy of the service job sheet dated 5^th September, 2014 issued by Sankalp Electronics, SCF 9, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Opp. Iqbal Inn, Patiala, which apparently appears to be the service centres of the company make Sony in respect of the mobile hand set bearing IMEI no.351867066350809. Under the heading ASC Comments, it is recorded, “NETWORK PROBLEM IN SIM 1 SOME TIME AND EARSPEAKER PROBLEM.” Under the heading Entry Level Screening, it is recorded:

Power On/Off-Pass	Recognized SIM-Fail	Make call/Receive Call-Fail	Test Mode Check-Fail
Test Mode Check-Fail	Volume up/down-Pass	Ringer up/down-Pass	Wireless/Browse-Pass
Bluetooth check-Pass	Front camera check-Pass	Bottom camera check-Pass

10.     Ex. C3 is the copy of the retail invoice/cash memo/bill dated 6^th September, 2014 pertaining to the aforesaid mobile hand set. In the heading ASC Comments, it is recorded, “RUR-RETURN-UN-REPAIRED, CUSTOMER IS NOT READY TO REPAIR HIS SET.” It appears that the mobile hand was returned on 30.09.2014 as would appear from the date given by the concerned official of the service centre.

11.     Ex. C4 is the copy of the retail invoice/cash memo/bill dated 26^th September, 2014 in respect of the aforesaid mobile hand set issued by Sankalp Electronics, SCF 9, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Opp. Iqbal Inn, Patiala. Under the heading ASC Comments, it is recorded, “S/W UPDATE SET OK.”

12.     It is really surprising that the complainant is very much silent with regard to his having got the mobile hand set checked and got S/W updated from the service centre, on which date the mobile hand set was found to be okay. Nowhere the complainant has made any allegation in the complaint that after 26.09.2014 he had faced any problem in the working of the mobile hand set and rather he is harping on the plea that he had approached the O.P on 14.11.2014 for getting mobile hand set replaced.

13.     It is also interesting to note that the complainant has not made the service centre namely Sankalp Electronics, SCF 9, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Opp. Iqbal Inn, Patiala a party to the complaint and has simply brought this complaint against the seller of the product.

14.     Again no evidence is led by the complainant to show that the mobile hand set was sent to the authorized service centre thrice and every time a problem was found in the same. The last service report produced by the complainant on file is Ex. C4 dated 26.09.2014 and which would go to show that the S/W was updated and the set was returned to the complainant in okay condition.

15.     In case the complainant was not satisfied with the software up date made on 26.09.2014 and he found any problem in the same, he was supposed to have approached the service centre about the problem found in the working of the mobile hand set but nowhere it is alleged in the complaint that the complainant faced any problem in the mobile hand set after 26.09.2014. In any case, the complainant had no cause of action against the O.P, the retailer of the mobile hand set. Under these circumstances, it would appear that the complaint brought by the complainant is without any basis and same has got to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly.  

Pronounced.

Dated: 09.03.2015.

 

                                      Sonia Bansal     Neelam Gupta                   D.R. Arora

                                      Member             Member                            President