BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.1 of 2016
Date of Institution: 1.1.2016
Date of Decision: 10.3.2017
Sunil Nagpal son of Shri Jaswant Rai, resident of 29 Kapas Mandi, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Makker Gift and Mobiles Sollutions, Main Bazar Neza Della Kalan, Distt. Sirsa through its Authorized person.
2. Chugh Telecom New M.C. Market, shop No.81-83, Sirsa, Authorized Customer Care of Sony company through its Authorized person.
3. Sony Ericson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Limited, 4th Floor, Dhaka House, 18/17, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Purshotam Phutela, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he purchased one mobile set make Sony T-3 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.27000/- vide invoice No.465 dated 15.12.2014 with one year warrantee. After few months of its purchase, there occurred problem of non functioning as the mobile set gone dead and rendered as scrap upon which complainant approached op no.1 and requested for replacement of said mobile. Upon his genuine complaint and detecting the manufacturing defect in the mobile, the op no.1 sent him to op no.2 who got deposited the mobile on 10.12.2015 and on checking op no.2 was also satisfied that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile. Op no.2 kept the mobile with them vide job sheet dated 10.12.2015 and assured to get replaced the same or to refund the amount but till today his grievance has not been redressed despite his several visits and requests. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Ops no.2 & 3 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It has been submitted that during the period of warranty, repair or replacement is the sole discretion of the op no.3 alone. But in the present case, the warranty has already been expired since the actual purchase date is much before the purchase date mentioned by the complainant. There is connivance between the op no.1 and the complainant as the invoice filed with the case has been filed only to cover the present handset in warranty. It has been submitted that subject handset was never handed over to op no.1. The answering ops have checked with the sales team and there is no update nor any service history with any such retailer. The same was actually handed over to another dealer who is an authorized dealer i.e. Munjal Info Private Solution Limited vide invoice No.15299780 on 26.7.2014 as part of the supply to him. Further the invoice did not carry the TIN No. which is an important aspect of an invoice when generated. The complainant had first approached them with the blank bill in order to confirm the activation date of the subject handset which was however denied by the complainant at a later date. The same is clear with the fact that the IW dated 10th December 2015 was rejected due to activation date. The complainant again approached the answering ops on 26.2.2016 with the subject handset and same is still lying with the ops as the warranty has already expired and complainant has been negligent in collecting the same. It is denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the sold mobile by answering ops to the actual retailer. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of job sheet Ex.C3. again copy of bill Ex.C4, copy of job sheet (again) Ex.C5. On the other hand, ops No.2 & 3 produced affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and copies of documents Ex.OPW1 to Ex.OPW5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has alleged that he purchased the mobile set in question from opposite party no.1 on 15.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.27,000/- and said assertion of the complainant is proved from copy of bill Ex.C4 wherein the IMEI number of the mobile in question is also mentioned. Moreover, the version of ops No.2 & 3 that mobile in question was never handed over to op no.1 and was given to Munjal Info Private Solution Ltd. is of no significance and not material in view of the bill produced by the complainant which relates to Makker Gift and Mobiles Solutions. Now coming to the defect in the mobile in question, it may be noted here that the complainant purchased the mobile in question on 15.12.2014 and raised defects in the mobile in the handset only for the first time on 10.12.2015. In this regard there is copy of job sheet dated 10.12.2015 Ex.C5 on file. From the said job sheet, it is evident that mobile in question was handed over to op no.2 on 10.12.2015 in which it is mentioned that back cover broken, condition of set scratched and customer complained about no power, dead problem. It seems that complainant himself mishandled the mobile in question. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the mobile, it would not have worked for such a long time of almost one year. The complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question by any expert opinion. Resultantly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:10.3.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
