Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/101

Kultar singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dabra Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        101

Date of Institution :   18.04.2016

Date of Decision :     27.09.2016

 

Kultar Singh aged about 43 years M/s Jagir Singh Oil Store, Channu Wala, District Moga, r/o village Sandhwan, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Dabra Communications, Near New Bus Stand, Opposite Dhodha Sweets, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Proprietor.

2. Sony Mobile Communications inc, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its MD.

                                                                             ...........Ops

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh S.P.S. Sandhu, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

    OP-1 Exparte.

    

   (Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions

   to Ops to replace the defective mobile handset or return the entire price of said handset and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

   2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP-1, complainant purchased a mobile handset of make Sony bearing IMEI No.356746066634955 on cash payment of Rs.15,000/-from him and at the time of its purchase, OP-1 gave guarantee of one year against any defect in said handset, but after about six months of its purchase, said mobile handset started creating hindrance and used to become hang. On this, complainant approached Opposite Party No.-1 and requested to remove the defect and OP-1 kept the same with him and asked him to come after a week. Complainant again visited OP-1 to get back his mobile handset, but he was shocked to see that OP-1 did not remove the defect from his handset. On request of complainant to repair the said handset, OP-1 flatly refused to do so saying that it is the duty of OP-2 to remove the defect and returned the said mobile to complainant. Complainant made many requests to OPs to remove the defects from his said mobile handset but all in vain. Legal notice issued by complainant also bore no fruit. The complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this act of OPs, complainant has suffered great  harassment and has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay 

     Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

   3                         The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 22.04.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                  OP-1 appeared in the Forum through Counsel, but despite availing many opportunity, OP-1 did not file reply. Case was called up several times, but OP-1 did not appear in the Forum either in person or through counsel to defend the allegations levelled against them. Therefore, vide order dt 15.07.2016, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte.

5                                           OP-2 filed reply wherein admitted that complainant purchased the said mobile handset from Op-1 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions and applications alongwith detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of said mobile. It is asserted that OP-2 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the date of its original purchase and it is not liable for claims falling outside the scope of warranty. It is further averred that complainant never visited any authorized Service Centre of OP-2 as no Service History for said mobile is available with them. Complainant never brought the said mobile handset to their Service Centre for repairs. Moreover, complainant has filed the present complaint after a period of one year, when warranty period for same has been expired. It is further averred that if the complainant approached OPs, his handset would have been repaired, but complainant never brought the same to their Service Centre regarding any defect in same and for removing the defects if any in it. Complainant has failed to establish any inherent defect in said mobile handset. There is no manufacturing defect in mobile in question. It is reiterated that complainant never approached answering OPs for any solution regarding defect in his mobile and moreover, he has filed the instant complaint after expiry of warranty period. It is contended that after receiving the notice issued by complainant, OP-2 sent a letter dated 24.05.2016 for intimating the complainant that they have been unable to trace any service history pertaining to his mobile phone and also requested him to get the handset inspected from answering OPs for appropriate solution, but despite this, complainant neither brought his mobile phone to them nor got the same inspected for appropriate remedy and now, he has filed a false complaint on baseless allegations. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as complainant himself never reached their Service Centre for repair to his handset. All the other allegations levelled by complainant have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of same is made.

6                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                       The ld Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Prinyak Chauhan as Ex.OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to 4 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

8                                      We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

9                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that on assurance of OP-1, complainant purchased a mobile handset of make Sony on cash payment of Rs.15,000/- from him and at the time of its purchase, OP-1 gave guarantee of one year against any defect in said handset, but after about six months of its purchase, said mobile handset started creating hindrance and used to become hang. Complainant approached OP-1 and requested to remove the defect, who kept the same with him and asked complainant to come after a week. Complainant again visited OP-1 to get back his mobile handset, but he was shocked to see that OP-1 did not remove the defect from his handset. On request of complainant to repair the said handset, OP-1 flatly refused to do so saying that it is the duty of OP-2 to remove the defect and returned the said mobile to complainant. Complainant made many requests to OPs to remove the defects from his said mobile handset but all in vain.  Legal notice issued by complainant also bore no fruit. Complainant has suffered great harassment due to this  and has prayed for accepting the present complaint. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 5.

10                               To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but it is admitted that complainant purchased the said mobile handset from Op-1 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions and applications alongwith detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of said mobile. It is asserted that OP-2 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the date of its original purchase and it is not liable for claims falling outside the scope of warranty. It is further averred that complainant never visited any authorized Service Centre of OP-2 as no job sheet or Service History for said mobile is available with them. Complainant never brought the said mobile handset to their Service Centre for repairs. Moreover, complainant has filed the present complaint after a period of one year, when warranty period for same has been expired. It is further averred that had the complainant approached OPs, his handset would have been repaired, but complainant never brought the same to their Service Centre regarding any complaint or defect in same and for removing the defects if any in it. Complainant has failed to establish any inherent defect in said mobile handset as there is no manufacturing defect in mobile in question. There is no manufacturing defect in mobile in question. It is reiterated that complainant never approached answering OPs for any solution regarding defect in his mobile and moreover, he has filed the instant complaint after expiry of warranty period. It is contended that after receiving the notice issued by complainant, OP-2 sent a letter dated 24.05.2016 for intimating the complainant that they have been unable to trace any service history pertaining to his mobile phone and also requested him to get the handset inspected from answering OPs for appropriate solution, but despite this, complainant neither brought his mobile phone to them nor got the same inspected for appropriate remedy and now, he has filed a false complaint on baseless allegations.There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as complainant himself never reached their Service Centre for repair to his handset. All the other allegations levelled by complainant have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of same is made.

11                            The case of complainant is that he purchased a mobile handset for Rs.15,000/- from OP-2 against guarantee and warrantee for one year, but after about six months of its purchase, the said mobile handset became defective. Complainant reported the matter to OP-1, who did not repair the same saying that it is the duty of OP-2 to repair the mobile phone. Repeated requests made by complainant before OP-1 and 2 bore no fruit and under compelling circumstances, he had to file the present complaint. In reply, OP-2 replied that complainant never approached them regarding any complaint in mobile in question and for repair of same. They have denied all the allegations on the plea that complainant never approached them with any complaint or for repair of his mobile phone.

12                         We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. At the outset it is worthwhile to mention that mobile in question purchased by complainant is under the period of warranty and it is one of liability of OPs to repair the same free of costs, but OPs did not repair the same despite repeated requests made by complainant. Plea taken by OPs that complainant did not approach them for removal of defect in said mobile, has no force as even during the pendency of complaint in this Forum, OPs never made any effort to reconcile the matter. On the contrary, complainant has produced enough documentary evidence to prove his pleadings. Therefore, we have found that evidence produced by the complainant is cogent and sufficient. Consequently, complaint filed by the complainant is allowed with directions to OPs to replace the mobile handset in question. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- to complainant as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made by OPs jointly and severally within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 27.09.2016

          Member                 President

          (P Singla)              (Ajit Aggarwal)