| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 308 of 21.12.2015 Decided on: 22.3.2017 Karamjit Kaur, aged about 32 years, daughter of Late Sh.Amrik Singh, resident of House No.9, Yadvindra Colony, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Harjeet Bros., Nokia Priority Dealer, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala through its Proprietor.
- Sanklap Electronics (Authorized Service Centre of Sony Mobiles), SCF 9, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Opp. Hotel Iqbal Inn, Patiala through its Manager.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Charanvir Singh,Advocate, counsel for complainant. Sh.Puneet Gupta, Advocate, counsel for Opposite parties. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Sony M4 Aqua DS from OP No.1, vide invoice dated 22.9.2015 for an amount of Rs.19,981/-.It is averred that on the very next day of the said purchase, the mobile phone started giving problems i.e. it used to get heated up and also got disconnected during phone calls at its own. The complainant approached OP No.1, who directed the complainant to contact OP No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company. The complainant approached OP No.2 on 26.9.2015 and got deposited the mobile phone with it vide job sheet No.W115092605363 and OP No.2 issued retail invoice/cash/memo/Bill No.SE3/FY 15-09/0000484 to the complainant, with the assurance to rectify the problem and return the mobile phone to the complainant after removal of the problems. That after a few days, the complainant collected the mobile phone from OP No.2 after rectification of the problem but when the complainant used the mobile phone, he found that the problems in the mobile phone had not been removed. The complainant again approached OP No.2 on 29.9.2015 and got deposited the mobile phone with it vide job sheet No.W115092905885 and OP issued retail invoice/cash/memo/Bill No.SE3/FY 15-10-0000024 dated 3.10.2015. After a few days complainant contacted OP No.2 who returned the mobile phone to the complainant after rectifying the problem. But again when the complainant used the mobile phone, he found that the same problem still persisted and so he again approached OP No.2 on 12.10.2015 and got the mobile phone deposited with it vide job sheet No.W115101203980 and OP No.2 issued retail invoice/cash/memo/Bill No.SE3FY 15-10-0000172 dated 12.10.2015 to the complainant.At that time, OP no.2 demanded a sum of Rs.4000/- from the complainant and stated that the version of the mobile phone was to be updated and when the complainant refused to incur such expenses for repair as the mobile phone was within warranty period, OP no.2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the O.Ps. many times and requested to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs.19981/- but to no use.
- On 17.11.2015, the complainant got served a legal notice to the O.Ps but the O.Ps failed to respond to the legal notice. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment, inconvenience and mental agony. All these facts show deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. The only plea taken by the O.Ps is that on thorough inspection the O.Ps observed that the mobile phone was working normally and no trouble was found in the mobile phone and the same fact was very well acknowledged by the complainant by signing the job sheet. After denying all the allegations, made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of her case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA and Ex.CB, her sworn affidavits alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9, and her counsel closed the evidence.
- Whereas the counsel for the O.Ps. tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Manoj Aggarwal alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 22.9.2015 from OP No.1. Ex.C2 is the job sheet dated 26.9.2015, whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with the service center i.e. OP No.2.On receiving back the mobile phone on 28.9.2015, the complainant found that the defect in the mobile phone had not been rectified and he again deposited the mobile phone with OP No.2 on 29.9.2015 vide job sheet i.e.Ex.C3. OP no.2 returned the mobile phone after rectification of the problem on 3.10.2015 but on using the same, the complainant found that the same problem still persisted. Accordingly he again deposited the mobile phone with OP No.2 on 12.10.2015 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C4. Thereafter, the mobile phone again started giving problem. Ex.C5 is the registered legal notice dated 17.11.2015, but the O.Ps failed to respond to the legal notice. Ex.C9 is the job sheet dated 19.7.2016 whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP No.2, who returned the mobile phone on 3rd August,2016 after solving the problem. The only plea taken by the counsel for the O.Ps was that the mobile phone was working normally and no trouble was found. As per the terms of warranty provided by O.Ps. to the complainant is as follows:
“What we will do- if during the warranty period, this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in design, materials or workmanship, Sony Authorized distributor or Service Partners, in the country/region, where you purchased the product, will, at their option either repair, replace or refund the purchase price of the product in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated herein”. - In the present case, the problem occurred in the mobile phone within 4 days of the said purchase. As the problem could not be rectified, the complainant kept on approaching and depositing the mobile phone with the service centre. The plea taken by OPs does not appeal to be true. If there was no defect in the mobile phone, why the complainant kept on depositing the mobile phone with the service centre and the service centre too used to retain the mobile phone for 3 to 4 days every time. If there was no problem in the mobile phone, why the service centre used to retain the mobile phone. These facts show that there was certainly some problem in the mobile phone which occurred during the warranty period and the OP no. 2was bound to rectify the same which it failed to rectify and it amounted to deficiency in service on its part and also the complainant underwent a lot of harassment.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint against the OP no.2 with a direction to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same make and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.19,981/- , the same being the price of the mobile phone. OP No.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by OP No.2 within a period of 30days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:22.3.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
