Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/757

Davinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/ D.K.Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sarabjit Singh

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    CC No: 757 of 07.11.2014

                                                                   Date of Decision: 24.03.2015

                                                                                                                              

Davinder Vig s/o Darshan Lal Vig R/o 3769, Sec-32-A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

..…Complainant

Versus 

1. M/s D.K.Electro Vision, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana.

2. M/s Aroma Instant Service, FCO-39-G, LGF, B.R.S.Nagar Market, Opp. Police Station, Ludhiana.

3. Mr.Ravneet Singh, Sale Manager, M/s D.K.Electro Vision Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana.

4. Sony India, Registered office A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Authorized Representative/Incharge, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

…..Opposite parties 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:       Sh.S.S.Kalsi, Advocate for complainant.

                   OPs exparte.

 

                   

                        ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Davinder Vig s/o Darshan Lal Vig R/o 3769, Sec-32-A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against M/s D.K.Electro Vision, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to replace the mobile set which is still in the custody of Ops or to return the amount received by OP1 and OP2, to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- being compensation to the complainant alongwith any other alternative relief, which the Forum deems fit. 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased Sony Mobile C6802 Xperia Z-Ultra, vide bill no.RI 3008 dated 11.09.14 with one year guarantee, after giving the entire payment to Ops. After two days of the purchase, the said mobile phone started giving trouble i.e. touch working, hanging problem and switching problem etc and complainant approached OP1 on 14.9.14 and OP1 retained abovesaid mobile phone from complainant with the assurance that there may be software problem in the mobile set and they will upgrade the software problem and will return the same to the complainant. On 18.09.14 OP1 and OP3 returned the mobile phone to complainant with assurance that the trouble was removed, but the complainant was shocked that the phone was again giving the same problem. Complainant again visited OPs office, who advised the complainant to approach to OP2 being authorized service center of Sony Mobile Phones. On 20/21.09.14 complainant approached in the office of OP2, who assured that the problem in the mobile phone will be removed within 3-4 hours. Thereafter after 3-4 hours OP2 assured the complainant that the trouble in the mobile phone was removed successfully. Thereafter when complainant check the mobile and complainant was again shocked to see that mobile was again not working properly and having hanging problem and touch problem and complainant returned the mobile set to OP2. But till date, mobile phone of the complainant has not been repaired and the same is in the custody OP2. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 13.10.14 upon OP1 to OP3, who received the said notice, but with no result. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                Notice sent to OP1 was served. But despite service, none had come present on behalf of OP1. As such, OP1 was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 5.12.14. On notice of the complaint Sh.Gagandeep, ASC Manager had come present on behalf of OP2. But on 5.12.14, despite calling case several times, none had come present on behalf of OP2. As such, OP2 was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 5.12.14. Notice sent to OP3 was served. But none had come present on behalf of OP3. As such, OP3 was also proceeded exparte, vide order dated 23.12.14. Notice sent to OP4, through registered post on 18.12.14. But no report was received. As such, after expiry of 30 days waiting period, OP4 was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 22.01.15.

4.                In order to prove his case, Ld. Counsel for complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Davinder Vig Ex.CA, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9.

5.                It is proved from the evidence of complainant that he purchased Sony Mobile C6802 Xperia Z-Ultra, vide bill no.RI 3008 dated 11.09.14 with one year guarantee for an amount of Rs.28,000/-, vide sale invoice dated 11.09.14 Ex.C1. But the said mobile phone was not working properly and there were certain problems in mobile set i.e. touch problem, hanging problem and switching problem etc and complainant approached OP1 on 14.9.14 and OP1 retained the mobile of the complainant with the assurance that there may be software problem in the mobile set and further assured that they returned the mobile after upgrading the software problem occurred in the mobile. On 18.9.14 the complainant received the said mobile from the OPs, but was surprised to see that the phone was giving the same problems. Thereafter the complainant approached Ops number of times for removing the abovesaid problems occurred in the mobile phone. But Ops failed to remove the problems in the mobile set of the complainant and the mobile set of the complainant is in the custody of the OP2.

6.                The Ops did not appear to contest the present complaint, as such, the evidence of complainant goes unchallenged and un-rebutted.

7.                In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile set of the complainant by repairing or replacing the defective parts without any cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. In case, it is found that the said mobile set of the complainant is not repairable, the OPs are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternate to refund the amount of the mobile set of the complainant, as per the bill/cash memo i.e.Rs.28,000/-. Further Ops are directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                                             (R.L.Ahuja)

                   Member                                               President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:24.03.2015 

Hardeep Singh