Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/354

NEETU - Complainant(s)

Versus

JUMBO ELECTRONICS CORPOTATION - Opp.Party(s)

16 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO. 354/16

Mrs. Neetu    R/o H.No. 335-WZ Block   Ihar  Village, New Delhi.                                                  …….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s  Jumbo Electronics  Corporation Pvt. Ltd.  Shop No. LGF 16,17 and 17A  Pacific  Mall  Near Subhash Nagar Metro Station  New Delhi-110018 

                        

2. M/s Sony  India  Registered Office   North New Delhi A-31,   Mohan  Co-operative  Industrial  Estate, Mathura  Road New Delhi-110044.                                                           

 

3.  M/s Sony Authorized Service Center

     Service Point office No. 308, 3^rd floor,

     DDA building 5 District center,

     Janak puri, new delhi-110058                          

     Opposite parties…….

 

       

O R D E R

PUNEET LAMBA  MEMBER  

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile hand set of make and model  Sony Xperia m4 Aqua IMEI no.352198070555103 vide invoice  no.1889 dated 31.5.2015 for sale consideration of Rs. 23,990/-  from OP-1. The complainant also got insured the  hand set by paying premium of Rs. 1499/- vide invoice no.19713 dated 31.05.2015. The mobile hand set developed fault regarding touch functions etc. and approached OP-1 who suggested to deposit the phone with authorized  service centre  at Janak

Puri.  The complainant approached OP-3 but they refused  to repair hand set free of cost and suggested to file claim with insurance company.  Thereafter the complainant approached the insurance company and file claim No. 07870334596  but till date neither  claim is  processed nor the phone is repaired.  OPs failed to redress the grievance therefore there is deficiency on  part of the OPs and they are jointly and severely liable. Hence the present complaint for directions to all the OPs to pay sum of Rs. 23990/- cost of mobile hand set  with interest @ 4% p.a and Rs. 1,00,000/-  as compensation for mental pain and harassment.

After notice the  OPs 1 to 3   appeared and filed reply to the complaint denying the allegations  of the complainant and asserted  that  after  using hand set for five months complainant approached OP-3 raising issue with micro phone of hand set and it was immediately attended and replaced the parts of the said   hand set  free of cost .  Thereafter  the complainant  again approached OP-3 on 12.05.2016  with issues regarding   loud  speaker just  19 days before the expiry of warranty   period.  Nevertheless the complaint was resolved  by replacing the necessary parts without charges. The OPs vehemently denied that there is no inherent defect  in the mobile hand set  and the complainant is using the phone satisfactorily, though the complainant herself is negligent and roughly  used  the hand set,  which is not  in good condition. There is no deficiency in service on part of OPs and no cause of action against them arose. They further asserted that as and when the complaint was lodged services were provided to the complainant  immediately.  The mobile hand set in dispute is perfectly in workable condition and the complainant  despite knowing the fact is not collecting  the same from OP-3.  Hence   prayed for the dismissal of the  complaint and there is no cause of action against  the OPs. 

3.     When the parties were asked to lead evidence, Complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint and relied on  invoice no.1889 dated 31.05.2015, invoice no.19713 dated 31.05.2015  and job sheet no.15103103424 dated 31.10.2015 and jobsheet no.W116051202750 dated 12.05.2016. On the other hand Sh. Priyank Chauhan  has filed his affidavit in evidence relating facts of reply on behalf of OPs also relied on invoice no.1889 dated 31.05.2015 and terms and conditions  of warranty. The OP-3 also filed  affidavit of Sh. Harmeet Singh  Mobile Service Engineer of OP-3 deposing  that the grievance of  complainant has been always attended promptly and immediately without any charges and  further deposed that hand set  is not kept in good condition by the complainant and she failed to follow instructions of usages as per warranty terms and conditions. Written submissions have also been filed by both the parties.

4.     We have heard  complainant in person.  It is worthwhile to mention here  as OPs are  not putting appearance since 05.09.2017  to advance argument despite several opportunities.  That being so the Forum has no option except to proceed further and have gone through the written arguments of  both the parties and material on record carefully and thoroughly.

        From perusal  of the  documents it reveals  that the hand set was given for repairs within warranty and the same  was also insured  by OP-1 by  charging  premium of Rs. 1499/- vide invoice no. 19713 dated  31.05.2015. The documents reveals that the complainant used mobile hand set for five months satisfactorily and for first time on 31.10.2015 approached OP-3 for repairs and the  hand set was returned after ten days.  Again after approximately  seven months i.e. on 12.05.2016  she deposited hand set for repairs with OP-3 and till date the hand set is not returned or repaired by them. However the OP deposed that the mobile handset has been repaired but the complainant despite knowledge of the same is not collecting for the reasons best known to her.     During course of arguments the complainant was confronted  with the issue that why she is not collecting the repaired hand set. She asserted that she approached Op-3 but they refused to handover the handset and after that there is no information about  rectification of the mobile hand set. There is no material  on record to substantiate this fact of OP   that they informed the  complainant  about the status of the repaired mobile hand set. Hence the OP failed  to rectify and returned the mobile hand set. 

In the light of above observations and  discussion we are of opinion that despite the hand set in warranty and is  also covered under insurance the  OPs failed to redress the grievance of the complainant to her satisfaction. Hence OPs are jointly and severally liable.   The OPs have admitted the hand set is with them and the complainant is not collecting the same but there is no material on record to substantiate the same.  The complainant has used the mobile  hand set approximately for one year satisfactorily.  Hence we direct all OPs jointly and severally to refund Rs. 15,990/- depreciated cost of the mobile hand set   and OP-1 to also refund Rs. 1499/- the premium paid for insurance of the hand set and Rs.5,000/- for compensation.    

 

  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to the record room. 

  Announced this_16^th  day of August 2018.

 

                 ( K.S. MOHI )                                                    (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                                   PRESIDENT                                                  MEMBER