BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.117/14.
Date of instt.: 02.06.2014.
Date of Decision: 17.07.2015.
Tajinder Singh son of Sh. Sukhbir Singh r/o 75/31, Dogran Gate, Jail Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Kaithal Health Care Centre, Show-room No.1, Koel Complex, Kaithal-136027 through its prop./owner Chirag s/o Anil Kumar.
2. Sony Mobile (connection) India Private Ltd., 2nd floor, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delh-110044.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Present : Sh. Anil Bamba, Advocate for complainant.
Op No.1 already exparte.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite party.No.2.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile marka Sony, Model C 2104L bearing IMEI No.356605051605653, Sr.No.ZH8000L231 from the Op No.1 for sum of Rs.17,500/- vide bill No.1287 dt. 25.07.2013. It is alleged that since the date of purchase of the above-said mobile, the said mobile was not working properly and after 15 days, there was no light on the screen and the complainant could not see the incoming call and missed call and screen of the mobile became defective and the said mobile became defective. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops several times for repair/replacement of said mobile but the Ops did not do so. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 17.07.2014. Op No.2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is submitted that the Op No.2 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 cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty; it is further submitted that in the present case, no complaint has been received either by the answering Op or any official or service centre of the Op No.2. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 and closed evidence on 31.10.2014. On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to R4 and closed evidence on 19.02.2015.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a mobile marka Sony, Model C 2104L bearing IMEI No.356605051605653, Sr.No.ZH8000L231 from the Op No.1 for sum of Rs.17,500/- vide bill No.1287 dt. 25.07.2013. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that since the date of purchase of the above-said mobile, the said mobile was not working properly and after 15 days, there was no light on the screen and the complainant could not see the incoming call and missed call and screen of the mobile also became defective. On 23.04.2015 statement of both the parties was recorded. Statement of complainant was recorded to the effect that he approached the OP No.1 regarding defective mobile but they ignored the complainant and ask the complainant to approach at Customer Care Centre, Karnal. Statement of ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 was recorded to the effect that the customer care centre of Sony company is situated at Kurukshetra and there is no customer care centre in Kaithal. So, in view of statements of both the parties, the complainant was directed to approach at Customer Care Centre, Kurukshetra. The report of Customer Care Centre, Kurukshetra was received and the same is placed on file, wherein in the column of comments, it is reported that “Sim Slot Damage”. So, in view of said report, we are of the considered view that the said mobile was defective.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to repair the defective mobile of the complainant and to replace the sim slot damage free of cost to the satisfaction of complainant. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.17.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Rajbir Singh),
Member.
