BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.216/2015.
Date of Instt.: 01.10.2015.
Date of Decision: 11.07.2016.
Kartik Bansal son of Vinod Bansal, resident of Ratia gate near Gopi Ram Dharmshala, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Khurana Mobile Gallery, Shop No.103, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad through its Proprietor.
2. Chugh Telecom (Sony Service Centre) New M.C. Market, Shop No.81-82-83 Sirsa.
3. Registered Office Sony India Private Limited, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044 through its Managing Director.
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh. P.K. Arora, Advocate for complainant.
OP No.1 already ex-parte.
Sh. Pankaj Bansal, counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had purchased a mobile of Sony company model M-2 Black bearing IMEI No.352774066805270 from opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.15,000/- vide bill No.10008 dated 25.2.2015. The mobile is manufactured by opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.1 is its authorized dealer. The mobile in question was having one year manufacturing warranty. It is further pleaded that after a few days of its purchase, problems of charging and inserting of master sim developed in the mobile upon which complainant visited to opposite party no.1 either for replacement or repair. The opposite party no.1 sent the complainant to opposite party no.2 who kept the mobile with it and issued a job sheet No.W115082403143 dated 24.8.2015 and stated that his mobile will be repaired. It is further pleaded that after a few days, the mobile was handed over to the complainant after repair. However, after some days, the problem of hanging and problems in the display, camera and ringer occurred in the mobile upon which the complainant again deposited the mobile with opposite party no.2 on 11.9.2015 and op no.2 issued job sheet No. W115091100760 dated 11.9.2015 and handed over the mobile after repair. It is further pleaded that after two/four days the same defects again developed in the mobile, so the complainant visited the op no.2 who stated that they are not responsible for the same. The complainant then visited to opposite party no.1 and asked him either to replace the mobile or to retur4n the price of the mobile, but op no.1 neither refunded the amount of Rs.15,000/- nor replaced the mobile and flatly refused to do so. Due to several visits to the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental harassment and financial loss. The complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the mobile and compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite parties for harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply wherein in preliminary objections it has been submitted that complaint is frivolous and devoid of any cause of action. In fact, there is no manufacturing defect in the handset and there is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of ops. It has been further submitted that even before the complainant approached this Forum he has been provided excellent post sales services and his grievances have been redressed. In addition, as a part of post sales services and a goodwill gesture the complainant has already been offered an exchange offer of the handset with the same or an equivalent value handset. It has been further submitted that the op no.3 is a company of international repute and sells world class products all across the globe. The products of the op no.3 are not just sold in India but also in several other countries. Due to the quality of the products of the op no.3, it enjoys an excellent market reputation. It has been further submitted that op no.3 provides a warranty of one year on its products and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and the opposite parties cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. It is necessary to mention that during the period of warranty, repair or replacement is the sole discretion of the op no.3 alone. It has been further submitted that complainant purchased the handset on 25.2.2015 and since then has been provided with free of costs after sales services. It is a matter of fact that the complainant has been a negligent user of the handset and has been putting a lot of stress on the handset not warranted under usage conditions as per the usage manual. The opposite parties have swapped the mother board of the handset and have also replaced parts of the handset which are the most expensive and crucial part of the handset with new IMEI No. twice free of cost. It is a matter of shock that the complainant has malfunctioned the handset. This speaks volumes about the mishandling of the complainant. It has been further submitted that after 12th of September, 2015, the complainant never approached opposite parties. In fact, at present the ops are unaware of the cause for which the complainant has approached this Forum. It has been further submitted that as a gesture of goodwill vide letter dated 31.10.2015, the ops have already sent to the complainant an offer and the complainant has not replied to the letter. The offer as given in the letter is still available for the complainant. It is very strange that the complainant is trying hard to take advantage of his wrongs and is blaming the ops for mishandling of the mobile phone. On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. It is reiterated and emphasized that the problems relating to the charging, Master sim insert tray, hanging issue, display, ringer and camera were not due to some inherent fault of the phone, but due to the misuse of the phone by the complainant. With these averments, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. Opposite party no.1 i.e. dealer did not appear despite due service and was proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW1 and documents as Annexures C1 to C3. On the other hand, opposite parties no.2 &3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Priyank Chauhan, Officer as Annexure R1 and documents as Annexures R2 to R4.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3 and have perused the case file carefully.
7. It has been established on case file that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 25.2.2015 as is evident from copy of cash/credit memo No.10008 dated 25.2.2015 placed on file by complainant as Annexure C1. The complainant is alleging that inherent defects in the mobile in question occurred despite repairs in the warranty period of one year and is claiming that op no.2 i.e. service centre of opposite party no.3 raised their hands after two repairs and stated that they are no more responsible for the continuance defects in the mobile in question. Thus, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as the defects were occurring within warranty period but despite that his grievance was not redressed. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 in retaliation have submitted that they have provided free of cost services to the complainant each time he has approached them as per the terms of warranty. They have swapped the mother board of the handset and have also replaced parts of the handset which are the most expensive and crucial part of the handset twice free of cost. From the reply of the ops No.2 &3, it is evident that mobile in question was having inherent defects and its major parts were replaced but despite that the problems in the mobile persisted. The ops No.2 &3 have also averred that as a goodwill gesture, vide letter dated 31.10.2015, they have sent an offer of exchange of the handset with the same or an equivalent value handset to the complainant but complainant has not given any response thereto. The learned counsel for ops No.2 & 3 have also drawn our attention towards letter of offer dated 31.10.2015 in this regard. During the course of arguments also, learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3 stated that they are ready to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same price. So, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 are acting in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty as warranty mentions that “if during the warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship, the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein.”
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set in question with a new one of same model. In case the company has stopped manufacturing the mobile of same model, then they will refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. The complainant will have to handover the mobile set and its accessories to the opposite party no.2. This order should be complied within a period of one month, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate legal proceedings against the opposite parties no.2 & 3. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated:11.07.2016
( Raghbir Singh) (R.S.Panghal) (Ansuya Bishnoi)
President Member Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal, Forum, Fatehabad.
