BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.216 of 2014

Date of Instt. 3.7.2014

Date of Decision :11.12.2014

Sourav son of Tarsem Lal R/o 25-R, Block-B, Model House, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Jagdambay Mobile House, Near Dolphin Hotel, Jail Road, Jalandhar 144001 through Prop. Auth.Signatory.

2. Service Point, 233/1, S.U.S.Nagar, Near Preetl Hotel, Jalandhar 144001, through Prop.Manager.

3. Sonly Mobile Communication (India) Pvt.Ltd, 2nd Floor A-31, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through Prop.M.D.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.JS Sandhu Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.SPS Thind Adv., counsel for opposite parties No.3.

Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that he purchased a mobile make Sony Model No.Xperia Z IMEI No.355666055212970 on 25.9.2013 for Rs.32,200/- from opposite party No.1. The said mobile became defective within 18 days and it was got replaced from opposite party No.2 but the said set again became defective due to battery backup problem and said set was also got replaced. In the catalogue delivered with newly purchased mobile set, it was mentioned that mobile set was water and dust resistant. On these averments the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.32,200/- being the cost of the mobile alongwith interest. He has also claimed litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite part No.3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that as per the records of the company the complainant herein had purchased a Sony Xperia Z mobile phone, bearing model No.C6602 on 25.9.2013 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications by the opposite party No.1 and after satisfying himself with the condition of the mobile phone. The opposite party 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 can not be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. The complainant herein approached the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.3 i.e opposite party No.2 for the very first time on 18.10.2013 with an issue of "no power" however, the subject handset was replaced with new one which was collected by him. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 on 25.10.2013 raising the issue of vibrating trouble however, the handset of the complainant was again replaced to satisfy the complainant herein. It is further submitted that after receiving the replaced handset the complainant lastly visited the opposite party No.2 on 7.12.2013 however, upon inspection crack in the display was found which was duly demonstrated to the complainant nevertheless, as a goodwill gesture towards the complainant, the subject mobile phone was again replaced by the opposite party No.2 which was collected by the complainant on 17.12.2013 thereafter, the complainant never approached the answering opposite parties alleging any issues which draws a strong presumption that the subject handset was working perfectly fine. It is pertinent to point out here that the complainant herein has filed a false complaint by developing the afterthought contents as subsequent to availing the replaced handset on 17.12.2013, if there were any defect in the replaced handset then the captioned complaint would not have been filed by the complainant on 3.7.2014 i.e after a considerable period of almost 7 months. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not appear in-spite of service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW/A alongwith documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/4 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the counsels for the parties.

7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased a mobile handset on 25.9.2013 vide retail invoice Ex.C-1 for Rs.32,200/-. As per averments contained in the complaint, the mobile handset of the complainant was replaced twice by the concerned opposite party, although according to opposite party No.3 it was replaced thrice. In his affidavit, the complainant has stated that handset replaced on 17.12.2013 was having warranty of one year i.e upto 16.12.2013, it became out of order which is lying as dead piece and opposite parties have refused to replace the same with new one despite repeated requests. So admittedly the handset was replaced for the last time on 17.12.2013. It is in the affidavit of Priyank Chauhan of opposite party No.3 that after 17.12.2013 the complainant never approached the opposite parties alleging any issue. The complainant has also not produced any service job sheet after 17.12.2013. In the complaint he has not mentioned as to what was problem in the replaced handset. In para 2 of the complaint, he has simply stated that the set i.e replaced set again became defective with the backup of battery problem and the same set was got replaced through his friend Mr.Hanish C/o Sony Centre Jalandhar. Then he has pleaded that as per catalogue duly purchased above said mobile set at the first step under important information it has clearly been mentioned that the mobile set was water and dust resistant and thereafter he has stated that opposite parties are liable to refund Rs.32,200 the actual cost of the mobile. In the complaint he has no where stated any defect in the handset which was replaced by the opposite parties on 17.12.2013. He has also not produced any service job card or sheet to show that he ever approached any opposite parties alleging any defect in the replaced handset which was obtained by him on 17.12.2013. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 2.7.2014 i.e after about 7 months from the date of obtaining the replaced handset. In case there was any defect in the replaced mobile handset then he would have approach the opposite parties complaining about the defect, if any. In his affidavit complainant has set up a version that handset was replaced on 17.12.2013 and it became out of order which is lying as dead piece and opposite parties have refused to replace the same with new one despite repeated requests but in the complaint he has not alleged so. He has also not produced any document to show that he ever approached any opposite party after 17.12.2013 alleging any defect in the replaced mobile hand set which was obtained by him on 17.12.2013. So the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of any opposite party.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

11.12.2014 Member President