BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint no. 147 of 2016.  

                                                          Date of Institution:          10.6.2016.

                                                          Date of Decision:     4.5.2017   

Shekhar Soni, M/S Jammuwal Jewellers, Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. M/S Apple Treee 2013, 36/2, Kutty Street, Seven Wells, Chennai- 600001 through its Manager/ Incharge.

2. Sony Mobile Company Care Centre, Near M.C. Market, Shop No.81, 82, 83 City Sirsa, District Sirsa (Haryana) through its Incharge/ Manager.

3. Sony Mobile Company, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 10044 through its Managing Director.

4. Managing Director, E-Bay India Private Limited, Goregaon (East) Mumbai.

                                                                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

   Before:              SMT. RAJNI GOYAT……PRESIDING MEMBER.

                             SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.

Present:                  Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for complainant.

                             Sh. A.S. Kaura, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3.

Opposite party no.4 exparte.                       

ORDER

                   In brief, case of complainant is that on 17.2.2015, he purchased one smart phone New Sony Xperia C-3 model bearing IMEI No.356872065388581 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.14,497/- vide bill No.15002 dated 17.2.2015. The complainant purchased the above said mobile through online through op no.4. At the time of purchase, the ops gave guarantee for said mobile and assured that during guarantee period in case of any defect the same shall be removed free of costs and in case of any manufacturing defect, said mobile shall be replaced through company or to refund the price of the mobile. It is further averred that just after purchasing of said mobile, it could not work due to manufacturing defects and could not start. The complainant immediately lodged complaint to the company as well as to other ops and mobile was sent to ops for repair or replacement but all in vain and the same was returned back with the postal report of “refusal”. In this manner, the ops have not taken care of any complaint of complainant and they never repaired or replaced the mobile and the mobile is still in manufacturing defective condition within warranty period. The complainant served a legal notice dated 12.1.2016 by registered post and then reminder on 26.2.2016 by registered post with request to replace it with new one but all in vain and the ops have not taken any action on the legal notices. In this manner, the ops have refused to admit the claim of complainant without any rhyme or reason. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, ops No.1 to 3 appeared and filed joint reply stating therein that there is no single proof against the ops that the handset was ever brought to any of the authorized service center of op no.3 or it has any inherent defect. The present complaint is liable to dismissed for absence of any service history or any kind of detail available with the ops. The ops after receiving the notice made their efforts to trace out the service details of the said mobile handset but could not find any details. This clearly shows that the handset in question was never brought to any of the service center of op no.3. In these circumstances, the presumption lies that complainant has been using the said handset satisfactorily without any trouble. Without inspecting the handset, the actual problem cannot be find out for appropriate remedial action. There is no specific allegation against ops with any evidentiary proof in the complaint. The complainant approached this Forum after satisfactorily using the handset for more than one year whereas the warranty with respect to the said handset is only for one year. A letter dated 6.9.2016 was sent by op no.3 to the complainant wherein it was specifically mentioned that in case the complainant is facing any issue with regard to the handset, he can get the handset inspected from the nearby service center. It was further mentioned that without inspection, it is not possible for the ops to know the exact issue with the handset. The in-warranty services are only applicable in the cases where there is no physical damage or there is a fault on the part of the company. The complainant has failed to bring on record any material evidence which shows that the handset in question was having some inherent defect.

3.                OP no.4 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.

4.                In evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of invoice Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, copy of reminder of legal notice Ex.C5 and copy of tracking results of DTDC courier Ex.C6 and letter dated 6.9.2016 Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                It is established on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question of Sony company through online service of op no.4 for a sum of Rs.14,497/- on 17.2.2015 and the mobile in question was delivered to him at Sirsa as is evident from copy of invoice dated 17.2.2015 Ex.C2. The complainant is alleging defects in the mobile in question just after purchase of the same and also within warranty period. There is no substance in the version of the ops that they did not receive the mobile from the complainant for inspection because record of DTDC courier Ex.C6 reveals that mobile in question was sent to the op no.1 at Chennai and it is mentioned in this document that “shipment was returned due to receiver refuse delivery” on 4.1.2016 and on 7.1.2016. The mobile was well within warranty period at that time and op no.1 could inspect the same but failed to do so and refused to take delivery of the mobile. The op no.3 sent a letter to the complainant on 6.9.2016 i.e. after filing of present complaint on 10.6.2016 and when the mobile became out of warranty and therefore this letter is of no consequence and has no value and has been sent at a very belated stage. The complainant also sent legal notice to the ops on 12.1.2016 and reminder on 26.2.2016 but to no effect.

7.                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile of complainant with a new one of equal cost or to refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.14,497/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 10.6.2016 till actual realization. This order should be complied by all the ops jointly and severally as directed above. 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.                                 Presiding Member,

Dated: 04.05.2017                           Member.   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.