Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/404/2014

Inderjit Kumar S/o Chandrika Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Mall - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

11 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 404 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 19.09.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 11.05.2016.

Inderjit Kumar aged about 31 years son of Sh. Chandrika Ram, resident of H. No. 1379, Near Radha Krishan Mandir, Jawhar Nagar, Jagadhri Workshop Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Mobile Mall Mid Point Building, Pyara Chowk, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. at A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044.
3. Ambey Electronic Service DS-14, First Floor, Jail Land, Sector 01, HUDA Market, District Ambala, Pin 134003, Haryana.

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Avdesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.

              Respondents No.1 & 3 already ex-parte.

 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Inderjit Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the defective mobile set with new one or refund the cost of mobile set of Rs. 13,900/- alongwith interest  as well as compensation and litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile set Sony Sony Xperia M C 2004, from Op No.1 i.e. Dealer vide Bill No. 3722 dated 29.10.2013 for a sum of Rs. 13,900/-(Annexure C-1). OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the mobile set in question and OP No.3 is the authorized service centre of OP No.2. After some time, the mobile set in question started giving problem like application open automatically, call starting automatically, hanging problem, touch pad not working properly, on which the complainant approached the Op No.1 in the month of February, 2014 and told him about the said defects in the mobile set in question who told the complainant that defects are manufacturing one and advised the complainant to approach the OP No.3 Service centre. Complainant after that approached the Op Noi.3 but Op No.3 did not issue any job sheet to the complainant. In the month of August 2014 when the mobile set of the complainant all of sudden stopped working and the display of the said mobile set was hanged then on dated 25.08.2014, the complainant approached again to Op No.3 and the mobile set in question was retained by Op No.3 and job sheet bearing No. AE6/FY14-08/0000776 was issued to the complainant and return the mobile set in question with remarks “ No Trouble Found” to the complainant. On the next day i.e. on 26.08.2014, the mobile set in question again stopped working and hanging and the complainant again approached the OP No.3 who issued job sheet bearing No.  AE/FY14-08/0000865 and asked the complainant to come on 27.08.2014 and on 27.08.2014 the mobile set in question was returned with the same remarks “ No. Trouble Found”.  Ultimately, the mobile set in question totally stopped working on 9.9.2014 and OP No.3 again retained the said mobile set and issued a job sheet bearing No. AE6/FY14-09/0000527 and returned the said mobile set to the complainant by replacing touch panel after a period of 6 days. Even after repair the mobile set in question is not working properly and Op No.3 finally refused to do anything. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 3 failed to appear despite service through registered post, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.01.2015. Op No.2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as Op No.2 company is a reputed company and doing the business under the name and Style of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and known by its product and on merit it has been admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set make Sony Xperia M bearing Model No. C2004 on 29.10.2013 and the mobile set in question was having warranty of one year 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. It has been further admitted that complainant approached the OP No.3 on 28.11.2013 with the issue of “hanging”, however, upon its thorough inspection by the service engineer, it was found that there was no fault in the hand set, however, on the request of complainant, the software of the hand set was up dated, which is evident from job sheet dated 28.11.2013. Again on 19.02.2014, 02.07.2014, 04.07.2014 and 25.08.2014 complainant approached the Op No.3 with the same request and on the request of the complainant the software of the mobile set in question was upgraded which is evident from the job sheets. The complainant again approached the OP No.3 with the issue back button not working on 9.9.2014, however, upon inspection by the service engineer it was found that the touch of the handset was defective which was duly replaced by the OP free of costs. However as a goodwill gesture towards its customer the Op No.2, just to avoid any dispute with the complainant offered the complainant refund of the purchase value but the same was refused by the complainant as the complainant wanted to get it repaired on free of cost basis which is contrary to the terms and conditions of warranty. The reason for offering exchange is given because the repairs of these handsets are neither feasible nor reliable. Moreover, the cost of the repair is much more than the cost of product itself. The complainant has filed the present complaint in order to make wrongful gains from the OPs. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint being neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2.

4.                     To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of bill bearing No. 3722 dated 29.10.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job sheet dated 25.08.2014 as Anenxure C-2, Photo copy of job sheet dated 26.08.2014 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of job sheet dated 09.09.2014 as Annexure C-4 and closed his evidence.  

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence short affidavit of Priyank Chauhan as annexure RW/A and Detailed affidavit of Priyank Chauhan as Annexure RW/B and documents such as Photo copy of  resolution dated 7.2.2014 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Important information/ terms and conditions as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. 

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant had purchased the mobile phone Sony Xperia M C2004 on 29.10.2013 vide Bill No. 3722 for a sum of Rs. 13,900/-(Annexure C-1) from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 whose service centre is OpNo.3. T

8                      The only grievances of the complainant is that from the very beginning he was facing problems in the mobile set in question like application open automatically, call starting automatic, hanging problem, touch pad not properly working etc. and due to that he visited so many times to the service centre of OPs which is evident from the job sheets dated 25.08.2014, 26.08.2014 and 09.09.2014 (Annexure C-2 to C-4).

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 argued that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question which is evident from the job sheets dated 28.11.2013, 09.02.2014, 02.07.2014, 04.07.2014 and 25.08.2014 as it has been mentioned in the job sheets that there was no problem in the mobile set and only software was upgraded. Learned counsel for Op No.2 further argued that complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 29.10.2013 and frequently used the mobile set in question up to 25.08.2014 which is evident from the first job sheet filed by the complainant Annexure C-2. Even on 25.08.2014 there was no problem and the mobile set in question was returned to the complainant on the same day. Further it is also evident from the job sheet dated 26.08.2014 (Annexure C-3) that there was no problem and the mobile set in question was handed over to the complainant after duly checking on 27.08.2014. Lastly prayed that, due to goodwill gesture and to avoid any dispute with the complainant, OP No.2 offered the complainant refund of the purchase value and this fact has been duly mentioned in para No.12 and 19 of their written statement. However, complainant refused to the same. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2.  

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we have perused the job sheets Annexure C-2 to C-4 from which it is evident that complainant might have suffered some problems due to one reason or other during the currency of warranty period of the mobile set in question. Further the Op No.2 has also admitted these facts that the complainant approached again and again to the service centre of Op No.3 to rectify his problems whatsoever. Further as the Op No.2 has admitted in para No.12 and 19 in their written statement that OP No.2 are ready to refund of purchase value to the complainant. As the OP No.2  has already offered to refund the cost, so, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of the complainant.

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to refund the cost of mobile set in question i.e. Rs. 13,900/- within a period of 30 days failing which complainant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulting period. The OPs No.2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. 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.11.05.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER