Haryana

Ambala

CC/312/2016

Anmol Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bhuvan Retail Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Kashyap

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.  : 312 of 2016

                                                                        Date of Institution    : 11.08.2016

                                                                        Date of decision       : 12.12.2017

Anmol Malik S/o Sh. Parvesh Malik R/o H.No.481, Sector-7, Ambala City aged about 35 years.

……. Complainant.

1.  M/s Bhuvan Retail Plaza 1293 A/1 Block 7 Manauli House, Prem Nagar, Ambala City.

2.  M/s Ambey Electronics Service DSS 14 Sector-1, Near Mind Tree School Huda Shopping Comples, Ambala.

3.  General Manager Sony Mobile Sony India Pvt. Ltd, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:         Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                     Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

         Ms. Anamika Gutpa, Member.                         

 

Present:        Sh. Manish Kashyap, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone Sony Xperia C-4 bearing IMEI No.355698051915702 from OP No.1 vide 4342 dated 21.08.2015 for an amount of Rs. 23,500/-. After the purchase mobile of the complainant used to hang after sometime and when the complainant used to visit the OP No.1 he always told complainant to that in such situation the best recourse is to switch it off the handset and turns it on after sometime again. On 16.06.2016 evening the mobile phone of the complainant atonce stop working at which wife of complainant on 17.06.2016 went to the office of OP No.2 and their executive check the mobile of complainant and reported that the mobile again needs the up-gradation and it would be repaired soon. On 18.06.2016 OP No.2 returned the phone and their executive further said that after two hour complainant has to restart it as it is a technical process with sony sets. Nothing was paid to them not did they demand any money as they said that this is under warranty.

Thereafter, from 18.06.2016 complainant started facing with the same problem alongwith the network problem and the trouble of hanging was increase which caused great difficulty for the complainant to do his daily routine work properly. That to an utter surprise cell phone did not worked fully after 18.06.2016. The complainant use to off the cell phone and then restart it and it use to hang at least three four times in day. Since, 24^th of June 2016 evening trouble started too much that even other functions stopped working, Camera stopped working. Wrong calls were made. The complainant press button for picking the call but the said function stopped etc. Again on 25.06.2016 complainant reached to the office of OP No.2 and told to them about the trouble. The complainant specifically told them that since the day of software is upgraded, cell phone is not working properly and giving me too much trouble. But the executives simply seen the cell phone and checked it for just one small minute and without going into detail by checking the set, said that display is not working and if complainant wants to get it repair then complainant  has to pay Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant was surprised to hear this and said that since the day software is upgraded it is giving trouble and on that day when OP No.2 returned the phone to the complainant than their executives simply said that software is upgraded and now it will work properly and complainant had just to restart it after two hours. The complainant requested to them that since 18.06.2016 the day the OP No.2 returned the mobile set of the complainant  problem has increased. They did not listen to complainant too much and simply said him that the set will be repaired at cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Now, it has come to the knowledge of the complainant  that his mobile set is having manufacturing defect and they had not given proper services to the complainant has got issued a legal notice dated 05.07.2016 dispatch  on 07.07.2016 to the correct addresses of OP’s but they all failed to comply with the terms of the notice. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that the complainant purchased on Sony Xperia C4/E5363 with IMEI No.352196070338926 on 21.08.2015 from OP No.1 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications along with the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the aforesaid mobile. After enjoying the said for almost 10 months, the complainant approached OP No.2 on 17.06.2016 raising an issue with the touch screen of the said mobile handset. The OP.2 without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the handset. Upon inspection it was observed that the handset got affected due to liquid ingression. It was further observed that the condition of the handset was not good. There were scratches on the handset and it seems that it was roughly been used by the complainant. Since the said model was no water proof, therefore, the warranty with respect to the same stood void. The OP No.3 has specifically communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 02.08.2016 that it is clearly mentioned  in the said letter that since the handset in question was affected due to liquid ingression which is an external cause of damage In such a scenario the warranty with respect to the said handset void. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayed for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-7 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexure R1 to R9 and close their  evidence.

4.                We have heard both the counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file. The case of complainant is that complainant had purchased a mobile phone Sony Xperia C-4 bearing IMEI No.355698051915702 from OP No.1 vide 4342 dated 21.08.2015 amounting to Rs. 23,500/- from OP No.1 as  Annexure C-1 and started giving problem  to hang after sometime, network problem, camera stopped working and wrong calls were made.

Perusal of the job sheet Annexure C-3/R-5 reveals that the mobile set occurred problems qua not working of touch and condition of the said scratched dusty & scrtratchy set, internal condition unknown, sim cap break missing and the version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the defects of the mobile set could not be rectified by Ops within its warranty period and even it was returned back without getting the necessary work done. Undisputedly, the handset went out of order during warranty period, therefore, it was the duty of the OPs to get the defects removed free of cost but strangely, the service centre demanded Rs. 5,000/- for the same on the ground that the mobile in question was  liquid damage. This version is contrary to the job sheet issued by the authorized service centre because no such fact has been mentioned in the same. The plea taken by the OP No.2 that the mobile hand set was liquid damage is not tenable as it is not supported by any credible and authentic evidence. Moreover, it is misconceived notion that any goods can be ordered to be replaced or the cost can be ordered to be refunded only if it suffers from manufacturing defect/liquid damage because there is no such concept of goods suffering from manufacturing defect enshrined by the provision of Consumer Protection Act.  Consumer Protection Act only defines the word ‘defect’ by way of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act which is to the following effect:

“Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”

From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the OPs are deficient in providing service and have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as per his satisfaction. There is enough on the record that the set in question went out of order within warranty period and the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.                     In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To rectify the mobile in question and to make it in working condition without charging any cost from the complainant.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :12.12.2017                                 

(D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                    President

 

    

          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)

Member