Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/376/2014

Vishal Sachdeva S/o Chander Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Duggal Mobiles Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Kumar

05 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

                                                                                    Complaint No. 376 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 04.09.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 05.02.2016.

Vishal Sachdeva aged 31 years (Advocate) son of Sh. Chander Sachdeva, R/o P4-14, 3^rd floor, Pitampura, New Delhi.   

                                                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/S Duggal Mobile Centre, # 4, Mela Singh Chowk, near YES Bank, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor.
2. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Manager.

                                                                                                                               …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Deepak Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate, counsel for respondents

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Vishal Sachdeva 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 in the alternative to refund the cost of mobile set alongwith interest and further directed to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile set Sony Colour White bearing IMEI No. 355810055238532 on 23.5.2014 vide invoice No. 16939 dated 23.5.2014 for a sum of Rs. 19,000/-(Annexure C-4) from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2. From the very beginning the mobile set was not working properly and there was a basic defect pertaining to attending the calls, the set started hanging problem etc. and the said set became faulty. The complainant approached the Op No.1 to rectify the defect but he did not listen the just and genuine request of complainant and defects were still not removed from the hand set. The abovesaid defects of mobile phone and behavior of Op No.1 amounts to unfair trade practice. Thus, the complainant has suffered mental tension, agony, harassment etc. for which the OPs are liable. Mobile phone sold by OP No.1 and manufactured by Op No.2 has manufacturing defect which was already in the knowledge of OPs and OPs with ulterior motive have sold the defective mobile set to the complainant intentionally.  Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is vexatious, baseless and is more of an abuse of the due process of law and on merit it has been stated that Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of distributing and marketing of mobile phones and other electronics goods under the brand name of SONY and it holds an impeccable position in the mobile phone industry in India. It has been further submitted that the liability of OPs lies strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it on its product and the OPs cannot be held liable for claims falling outside the scope of warranty. A copy of warranty terms as provided by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is annexed as Annexure R-2. The terms of warranty provided by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant clearly states the following

                        If during the warranty period, this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in design, materials or workmanship, Sony authorized distributors or service partners, in the country/region where you purchased the product, will, at their option, either repair, replace or refund the purchase price of the product in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated herein.

4.                     As per the terms of the warranty, it is clear that the discretion to either repair or replace the handset in case of a failure lies with Sony and/or its authorized dealers and/or service centre. It has been submitted that as per the records of company, the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia SP Mobile phone, having model No. C5302 and IMEI No. 355810055238532 on 23.5.2014. After using the handset for a period of almost two months without any problem whatsoever, the complainant visited the authorized service centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. with the complaint of “ ear speaker problem”  with respect to the handset on 9.7.2014. It has been submitted that the handset was inspected, the ear speaker was replaced and the handset was delivered back to the complainant on 15.7.2014.  Thereafter the OPs received an arbitrary legal notice dated 23.7.2014 from complainant alleging certain other defects in the handset. It has been further submitted that upon receipt of said legal notice, the representatives of OP No.2 personally contacted the complainant telephonically and requested him to visit an authorized service centre of OP No.2 to get the handset inspected in order for the necessary support to be provided. The OP No.1 has also sent a written communication dated 12.9.2014 reiterating its stand, however, to no avail. Copy of letter dated 12.09.2014 is annexed as Annexure R-3. It has been further submitted that the present complaint has been filed without any cause and is an attempt to malign the well established reputation of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and to make wrongful monetary gains there from and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of job sheet dated 09.07.2014 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job sheet dated 27.01.2015 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of job sheet dated 05.02.2015 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of invoice No. 16939 dated 23.05.2014 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of legal notice dated 23.07.2014 as Annexure C-5, Postal receipts as Annexure C-6  and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms. Meena Bose D/o Late Shri Vinod Rai Jasapra, available at Sony India Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Resolutation dated 7.2.2014 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Important information/ terms and conditions as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of reply dated 12.9.2014 of legal notice as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 

7.                     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.

8.                     It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 23.05.2014 vide invoice No. 16939 for a sum of Rs. 19000/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2. The only plea of the complainant is that the mobile phone in question is defective from the very beginning and defects could not be rectified by the OPs despite various efforts.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that all the allegations have been falsely leveled, in fact, neither the mobile phone in question was having any manufacturing defect nor any complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant with OP No.1. Only on 09.07.2014 complainant visited the authorized service centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. with complaint of ear speaker problem and the same was returned on 15.07.2014 after replacing the ear speaker. Except this one, no other complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant. 

 10                   The plea taken by the Ops in the written statement as well as in the affidavit Annexure RW/A that the mobile phone was having only ear speaker problem is not tenable whereas from the perusal of Annexure C-1 to C-3 (Job sheets/ service requests), it is proved that there were problems of “ receiver volume low, network week, hanging, battery back up, incoming call not pic and cut, hanging issue while a internet using, battery back, calling hanging issue, charging problem, front camera and the OPs failed to rectify the defect in the mobile in question which forced the complainant to issue legal notice as well as for filing the present complaint before the Forum to redress his grievances. Moreover, the Ops took the plea in the written statement that the complainant visited the authorized service centre with the complaint of ear speaker problem only whereas the Ops mentioned in the reply dated 12.9.2014 of legal notice, the service engineer had done necessary service by replacing the ear speaker and battery.

 11.                  The aim of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better and all round Protection to the consumers and this is the only law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to redress complaints arisen from it and it also provides effective safeguards to the consumers against different type of exploitation such as defective goods, unsatisfactory or deficient service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, mobile set has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different models of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer. 

12.                   In view of the facts narrated above, we are of the confirmed view that the complainant might have suffered some hardship due to the defects in the mobile in question which is evident from the job card (Annexure C-1 to C-3). So, in these circumstances noted above, we have no option except to partly allow the present complaint and thus we direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of this order.

1. To repair the mobile phone of complainant and set it in proper working order free of costs.
2. To pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.

 

13.                   The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period otherwise all the aforesaid awarded amounts shall fetch further simple interest @ 7% per annum for the period of default. The complaint is decided accordingly in the 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.05.02.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER