BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/905 of 18.10.2010 

                                                Decided on:          15.9.2011

Yadwinder Singh son of S.Jarnail Singh, resident of House No.30-H, Partap Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Sony India Pvt.Ltd A-31, Mohan Co.Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Managing Director.

2.                 The Mobile Store, Leela Bhawan Market, Near Gopal Sweets, Patiala, through its Manager.

3.                 Sony Ericsson Service Centre, 22 No. Phatak, above Hans Raj Atta Chaki, Patiala through its Manager

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Anmol Singh, brother of the complainant

For opposite parties:     Ex-parte.

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant purchased a mobile phone hand set make Sony Ericsson model X-10 IMEI No.359419037829198 vide invoice no.PB/18832 dated 31.8.2010 for Rs.27,499/- from op no.2, the same having been manufactured by op no.1. Op no.2 had given a one year warranty in respect of the mobile hand set for any kind of defect.

2.       The mobile hand set worked properly for a few days only and thereafter it started giving problem in respect of mother board, blue tooth, connectivity and internet activity. At this the complainant approached op no.2, who asked the complainant to visit op no.3. At this the complainant visited op no3. and disclosed about the problems of the mobile phone. Op no.3 kept the mobile hand set with it and asked the complainant to come after a gap of seven days.

3.       Again the complainant visited op no.3 and who had given back the mobile hand set to the complainant after repairing the same. It was told that the mother board of the mobile phone hand set has been replaced and now it will not give any problem.

4.       It is further averred that the mobile hand set worked for 1-2 days and it again started giving problems. Besides the said problems, it used to give a warning that ‘MMI Code cancelled’. As and when the complainant made a use of the internet activities, the mobile phone gave the warning of ‘sim card unable’

5.       The complainant again approached op no.3 and apprised it about the aforesaid problems.Op no.3 kept the mobile phone with it and asked the complainant to visit after a gap of 5-6 days. When the complainant visited op no.3, after a gap of 5-6 days, again the complainant was asked to visit after a gap of 2-3 days and also disclosed that there was a manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set and the same was required to be sent to op no.1 for its replacement. Again after a gap of 2-3 days when the complainant approached op no.3 and requested to return the hand set, op no.3 put the matter off under one or the other pretext.

6.       The complainant had been visiting op no.3 and requesting for the return of the mobile hand set but who dilly dally put the matter off under one or the other pretext. Ultimately a week before the filing of the complaint, the complainant approached op no.3 and requested either to replace the mobile hand set with new one or to pay the price i.e. Rs.27499/- of the mobile hand set but op no.3 flatly refused to do so and rather the complainant was insulted by the employees of op no.3. The hand set of the complainant was returned un repaired. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to replace the mobile hand set with new one or in the alternative to pay him Rs.27499/- the cost of the mobile hand set; to pay him Rs.50000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the op and further to pay him Rs.11000/-as costs of the litigation.

7.       When the ops were put to notice, they failed to appear despite service and were accordingly proceeded against exparte.

8.       In the exparte evidence the complainant produced in evidence, Ex.C1 his sworn affidavit, alongwith the documents, Exs.C1 and C2 and the complainant closed the evidence.

9.       We have heard Sh.Anmol Singh, brother of the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.

10.     Ex.C2 is the copy of the invoice no.18832 dated 31.8.2010 to have been issued ( name of the dealer i.e. op no.2 not mentioned) regarding the sale of one mobile hand set make Sony Ericsson model X-10 having IMEI no.359419037829198 in favour of Yadwinder Singh for Rs.27499/-. One can not ascertain as to from whom the complainant had purchased the aforesaid mobile hand set. There is however, the categorical deposition made by the complainant in his sworn affidavit, Ex.C3 that the said mobile hand set was purchased by him from op no.2. Therefore, it was for op no.2 to have come forward to rebut the said fact.

11.     The complainant has produced,Ex.C1, photo copy of the work order no.SE310PMS10929 dated 17.9.2010 issued by Service Centre of Sony Ericsson situate at First Floor Sanjay Karyana Store, Opposite City Centre, Near Raj Kamal Palace, 22 No,Phatak, Patiala. The same contains the description of mobile hand set make X10i bearing IMEI No.359419037829198, the name of the customer being Anmol Singh. The mobile hand set had the problem “touch screen does not work”. The problem was rectified and the hand set was delivered to the customer Anmol Singh after doing the repairs to the satisfaction of the customer.

12.     The complainant has not produced any other work order to show that he had ever approached op no.3, for any problem given by the mobile hand set. The complainant also failed to give any notice to op o.3 or the other ops with regard to any deficiency of service in having failed to rectify the defect in the mobile hand set. Therefore, we find that in the absence of any requisite evidence to have been led by the complainant that after 17.9.2010 the complainant had ever approached either op no.3, the service centre of op no.1 or ops no.1&2 for any problem faced by it in respect of the mobile hand set and that they had not attended to the same, it is not possible for us to find any favour with the plea of the complainant regarding the deficiency of service on the part of the ops.

13.     It was for the complainant to have produced one or the other report consisting of the report by a mobile mechanic that there was a defect in the hand set , which is not either repairable or there is a manufacturing defect, in the absence of which no relief can be granted to the complainant. Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:15.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President