BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 196 of 2012
Date of Institution : 25.9.2012
Date of Decision : 9.2.2016
Hemant Gupta son of Sh.Chander Bhan gupta, r/o House no.208, B-Block, Sirsa, distt.Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- Hotspot Mobiles and More, 38,39, opposite NDP Civil hospital Road, Sirsa (Haryana) through its proprietor/partner.
- R.B.Computers, 73,74, Ist Floor Bishnoi Market, Sirsa, Distt.Sirsa through its Incharge.
- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Dakha House, 18/17, WEA, Karol Baag, New Delhi-110005 through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL ………PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Kapil Sharma, Advocate for complainant
Opposite parties no.1&2 already exparte.
Sh.P.K.Mehta, Advocate for Opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he had purchased a Sony Ericsson W-395 mobile bearing IMEI No. 356336031492588 from opposite party no.1 on 12.10.2009 for total sum of Rs.7135/- vide bill no.16 dt. 12.10.2009 with one year guarantee against any defect. After some time, the said phone developed defects i.e. sound and display; bad sound inside and sim was not working in the said mobile. The opposite party no.2 repaired the mobile set but not in a proper manner and again same problem created on 19.7.2010 and on 19.7.2010, the mobile set was handed over to op no.2 and job sheet was prepared. As per op no.2, LCD PCP etc. were replaced. Thereafter, on 25.9.2010, the mobile set again became defective and it was handed over to op no.2 for repair, but the same has not been returned to the complainant despite repeated requests. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 have been duly proceeded exparte vide order of this Forum dated 12.12.2014
3. Opposite party no.3 contested the case by filing reply. In reply, opposite party no.3 has admitted the sale of mobile set in question to the complainant and its warranty. It is also admitted that the complainant visited on 28.10.2009, 22.1.2010, 19.7.2010 and 30.9.2010 with complaints of display problem/sim problem/audio problem and every time, he was duly attended by Op no.2. However, as per record of company, on 22.1.2010, it was found that the handset was damaged by liquid. Though damage due to liquid renders the warranty void, but the Op no.2 provided free of cost repair service to the complainant. On 18.6.2011 after replacing the PCB of the mobile set by Op no.2, the complainant collected delivery of mobile set and at that time he was satisfied with the condition of the mobile set. Subsequent to 18.6.2011, the complainant never approached the Ops with any complaint and has been using the mobile set without any problem. As a goodwill, the Ops made an offer to the complainant that he can exchange the current handset with any of current Xperia range at a discount of 20% on retail price, but the complainant refused the said offer. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of ops.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex. C1- his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-purchase bill; Ex.C3 and Ex.C4-Service Job sheets, whereas the opposite party no.3 has placed on record Ex.R1-affidavit of Priyank Chauhan; Ex.R2-decision of Hon’ble New Delhi High Court dated 23rd July 2013; Ex.R3-resolution; Ex.R4-improtant information and guidelines.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a Sony Ericsson W-395 mobile bearing IMEI No. 356336031492588 from opposite party no.1 vide bill no.16 dt. 12.10.2009 Ex.C2 for total sum of Rs.7135/- with one year guarantee.. After some time, the said phone developed some defects such as sound, display; bad sound inside and sim was not working properly. The opposite party no.2 not repaired the mobile set in proper manner. Again it started creating problem on 19.7.2010. The mobile set was handed over to op no.2 and job sheets Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 were issued. Then op no.2 replaced the LCD PCP etc. on 25.9.2010. Again it was handed over to op no.2 for repair, but the same has not been returned to the complainant till date. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 have been duly proceeded exparte vide order of this Forum dated 12.12.2014.
7. Opposite party no.3 has filed the reply and admitted the sale of the mobile set to the complainant with its warranty. It is also admitted that the complainant visited to OP no.2 with his regular complaints regarding the mobile set, but according to the opposite party no.2, it was found that the problem persisted due to falling the water into the mobile.
8. From the perusal of job sheet Ex.C4, it is specifically mentioned in column of Symptom Code that sim not working and voice disturbance. In the complaint as well as in affidavit of complainant, fact of handing over the mobile set to the Op no.2 for repair has been clearly established on record. Moreover, Ops no.1 and 2 have been duly proceeded exparte on 12.12.2014. They have not come forward to put their version before this Forum. In these circumstances, it is established on record that the complainant deposited his mobile set for repair to Op no.2. The Ops are held guilty for the loss and harassment caused to the complainant and complainant is entitled for relief.
9. For the reasons and findings recorded above, we accept the present complaint with cost of Rs.1000/- and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile hand set to the complainant with new set within one month, otherwise to refund Rs.7135/- price of the mobile with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 25.9.2012, till payment. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for compliance of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated: 9.2.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Hemant Gupta Vs. M/s Hotspot Mobiles
Present: Sh.Kapil Sharma, Advocate for complainant
Opposite parties no.1&2 already exparte.
Sh.P.K.Mehta, Advocate for Opposite party no.3.
Arguments heard. For orders to come up on 9.2.2016.
Dated:28.1.2016. Member. Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
Present: Sh.Kapil Sharma, Advocate for complainant
Opposite parties no.1&2 already exparte.
Sh.P.K.Mehta, Advocate for Opposite party no.3.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been
accepted with costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:9.2.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
