Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/893/2012

Sanjay Rana S/o Rai Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mehndiratta Music world - Opp.Party(s)

B.K.Pundir

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                            Complaint No.893 of 2012.

                                                                                            Date of institution: 21.8.2012

                                                                                            Date of decision: 2.11.2015.

Sanjay Rana aged 37 years son of Shri Rai Singh resident of village Golni, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Mehndiratta Music Works, 4-C, Mela Singh Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Prop,/Partner.   
2. Sony Ericsson, Mobile Communication ( India) Pvt. Ltd. 4^th Floor Dakha House, 18/17 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 through its M.D./Manager.                                                                                              …opposite parties.

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  None for complainant.  

                OP No.1 already ex-parte.  

                Sh. S.C.Jindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

                

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Sanjay Rana has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed either to replace the mobile set of complainant with new one or to refund the amount of Rs. 5000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs. 10000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, agony and loss suffered by him. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one Sony Ericsson F 395 Mobile Set bearing IMEI No. 358145029697969 on 31.8.2011 from OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of the manufacturing company OP No.2 for an amount of Rs. 5000/-  vide cash Bill No. 9449 dated 31.8.2011. It has been further alleged that after few days the abovesaid mobile phone became defective, as nothing is displayed on its screen and it did not function. The complainant made a complaint to OP No.1 regarding defect in the mobile phone who asked him to approach the service centre of OP No.2. Accordingly, the complainant visited the Service Centre of Sony Ericsson at Ist Floor Anand Market, Near Punjab & Sind Bank, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar and engineer/mechanic present there checked the mobile phone and repaired the same. Even after repair the mobile phone did not function. The complainant on 17.6.2012 went to the Service centre of OP No.2 and engineer/ mechanic present there checked the mobile phone and repaired the same. Thereafter again the mobile phone did not function, having same defect and the complainant went to the service centre on 25.6.2012 but they refused to attend the complaint of the complainant. Thus, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel but did not file written statement and lastly on 11.7.2013 none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.7.2013.

4.                     OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as no cause of action, concealed the true and material facts and on merit has been alleged that the complainant purchased the handset in question on 31.8.2011 after his complete satisfaction and he made first complaint on 17.5.2012 i.e. after more than eight months of the purchase of handset in question and the said complaint was attended by the authorized person of OP No.2. The customer brought the handset with display problem at the service centre and the alleged complaint was duly attended by the authorized person of OP No.2. After inspecting the handset the engineers at service centre found that some parts were not working properly and therefore told the customer to come after few days. When the engineers checked the details of the handset in the main server of company i.e. OP No.2 they found that the handset to be out of warranty period. The manufacturing date reflected in the system was 6^th February, 2009. It has been further mentioned that the OP No.2 give 27 months warranty on the handset from the date of manufacturing. After the expiry of the warranty period the customer have to pay for the repairs carried out by the company. The warranty of handset in question had already expired in May 2011 and this fact was concealed by OP No.1. Since the handset is an out warranted one therefore OP No.2 is not responsible for this illegal act of OP No.1 and is not under any legal obligation to compensate for the wrongful acts of OP No.1. Hence, any claim of whatsoever nature against Op No.2 is not maintainable. It has been denied that the complainant visited Yamuna Nagar Service Centre of Sony Ericsson at First Floor Anand Market, Near Punjab and Sind Bank Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar and mechanic present there checked the mobile phone and after checking he repaired the same and handed over it to the complainant after repair by saying that it will function properly. It has been mentioned that the complainant shall be put to strict proof of the averments so contained in the complaint. It has been submitted that the present complaint is malafide, illegal and filed with a view to pressurize and blackmail the OP No.2 and is liable to be rejected with costs.

5.                     Both the parties failed to adduce any evidence despite last opportunity, hence their evidence was closed by court order dated 1.10.2015.

6.                     As the complainant failed to lead any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on 21.10.2015. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and documents such as Photo copy of Invoice dated 31.8.2011 of mobile in question with the complaint in support of his complaint.

7.         We have heard the learned counsel for OP No.2 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

8.                     From the perusal of copy of bill, it is evident that the complainant purchased one Sony Ericsson F 395 Mobile Set bearing IMEI No. 358145029697969 on 31.8.2011 from OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of the manufacturing company OP No.2 for an amount of Rs. 5000/- vide cash Bill No. 9449 dated 31.8.2011.

9.                     The complainant has stated in para No.2 of his complaint that mobile phone became defective as nothing is displayed on its screen after one month from the date of purchase of the mobile phone. The complainant made a complaint to OP No.1 regarding defect in the abovesaid mobile phone who directed the complainant to approach the service centre. Accordingly, the complainant visited the service centre of Sony Ericsson  and the mechanic/engineer present there checked the mobile phone and repaired it and handed over to the complainant. Even after repair of the mobile phone, the mobile phone did not function, as nothing displayed on its screen. When he visited again the service centre in this regard then the engineer/mechanic present there refused to attend the complaint of the complainant.

10.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 argued that complainant made first complaint on 17.5.2012 i.e. after more than 8 months from the date of purchase of hand set in question and after inspecting the handset the engineer at Service Centre found that some parts were not working properely and therefore told the customer to come after few days. When the engineer checked the detail of hand set in the main server of the company he found that the hand set was out of warranty period. The manufacturing date reflected in the system was 6^th February 2009. The mobile set in question was having 27 months warranty on the handset from the date of manufacturing and after the expiry of the warranty period the customer have to pay for the repair carried out by the company. The warranty of handset in question had already been expired in May 2011 and this fact has been concealed by the OP No.1 as the warranty of the handset had already expired. Therefore, on 22.5.2011 this fact was brought to the notice of the complainant. The complainant refused to take back the  handset and insisted on free of costs repair which is illegal and against the policy of the company. Hence, unrepaired hand set was given back to the complainant. OP No.1 i.e. Mahendiratta Music World had sold the mobile handset to the complainant whose warranty had already expired in May 2011. So, the OP No.2 is not responsible for illegal act of OP No.1. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and lastly requested for dismissal of complaint.

11.                   After going through the contents of complaint, documents, pleadings and arguments advanced by counsel for OP No.2 we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 as from the reply/written statement filed by OP No.2 it is clear that mobile handset in question was out of warranty which has been sold by OP No.1 to the complainant. The version of OP No.2 which is duly supported by affidavit of Sh. Sumit Saraf, of M/s Sony Mobile Communications Private Ltd. has not been rebutted by OP No.1 and remained ex-parte. Further it has been admitted by OP No.2 in his written statement that mobile set in question was having problem as the screen was not working and unrepaired handset was given to the complainant. Hence, the complainant might have repaired it from the local market and on this he might have spent some amount. It is no doubt that complainant remained absent during the course of arguments and further no job sheet has been filed by the complainant with the complaint. However, when the version of the complainant has been admitted by OP No.2 in his written statement then there is no need for any further evidence to prove that the mobile in question was having any manufacturing defect. Further it is not disputed that the mobile in question was sold by OP No.1 to the complainant vide bill No. 9449 dated 31.8.2011 but on the other hand, as per the company norms which has been specifically mentioned in their written statement that the mobile set in question has been sold by OP No.1 after the warranty period of 27 months which expired in the month of May 2011 from 6.2.2009. So, the fault lies on the OP No.1 he has sold the mobile set in question after expiry of the warranty period to the complainant.

12.                   In these circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. Hence, he is liable to pay  a sum of Rs. 2,000/- which the complainant might have spent on repair of the mobile phone from the local market. Further the OP No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as cost of litigation expenses and harassment. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. However, it is made clear that OP No.1 can recover this amount from OP No.2 if there is no violation of the policy of OP No.2 regarding warranty. As such, the complaint is partly allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 2.11.2015.                     

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.