Punjab

Sangrur

CC/629/2014

Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Goyal Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajnish Verma

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Complaint no. 629                                                                                                

                                                          Instituted on:  20.11.2014

                                                          Decided on:    08.04.2015

Jaswant Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of Village Liddran, Tehsil  and District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. M/s Goyal Mobiles, Opposite Kaula Park, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor/partner.
2. Sankalp Electronics, Nankiana Chowk, Opposite K.T. Royal Hotel, Sangrur through its Proprietor    (authorized service centre of Sony Experia-M) Mobiles.
3. The Sony India Private Limited A31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its authorized signatory.       

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Rajnish Verma, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1   :      Exparte                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.2&3 :Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate                     

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Jaswant Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a new mobile hand set Sony Experia-M, Model C-2004 for  Rs.13800/- from the OP No.1 under invoice/bill number 631 dated 30.11.2013.  From the very beginning of the purchase,  the said mobile set started giving problems of  speaker, mother board and front camera. To rectify the same, the OP No.1 was approached who advised the complainant to approach OP No.2 on which he approached OP No.2 and requested to it to rectify the defect and on 27.06.2014 OP No.2 after some repair returned the same to the complainant but the problem persisted. On 16.08.2014, the complainant approached the OP No.2 for repair of the mobile set who issued job sheet number 14081606677 dated 16.08.2014. After lapse of 20 days when the complainant went to OP No.2 to collect the mobile set then OP No.2 told him that the mobile set is having some manufacturing defect and same cannot be rectified. Thereafter the complainant requested the OP No.1 to either replace the defective mobile set with a new one  or to return  the amount of mobile set  but OP No.1 flatly refused  to replace the defective mobile set  with a new one or to return the amount. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to return the  purchase price of the mobile set in question i.e Rs.13,800/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,   

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs No.2&3, it is submitted that the OPs No.1 and 2 are the authorized dealer and the authorized service centre of OP No.3. It is admitted that the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia M Model No.C-2004 from the OP No.1.  It is also submitted that the OP No.3 provides a warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase. The relevant terms of warranty provided by the OP No.3 to the complainant that “ if, during the warranty period this product fails to operate under normal use and service,  due to defects in materials or workmanship, the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will at their option either repair or replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein”.  Further, it is submitted that “  this warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to  normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal  customary manner nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid”.  It is submitted that after receiving the handset  on 03.07.2014 ( wrongly written as 3.04.2014) the complainant again approached the  service centre on 9.7.2014  and 15.07.2014  with camera issue, however the  software was duly upgraded and the mobile was collected by the complainant on 23.07.2014 with his entire satisfaction. Thereafter the complainant visited the OP No.2 on 23.08.2014 with the problem of “ not- charging” however USB connector and label were duly replaced with new one.  It is alleged that  the complainant has not annexed any report of independent expert as defined under Section 2 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3.

 

 

3.             The record shows that  after receipt of complaint notice was issued  to the OP No.1 but none  appeared for it and as such OP No.1 was proceeded exparte on 30.12.2014.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs No.2&3 have tendered an affidavit Ex. OPs 2&3/1 along with exhibit RW1/1 to RW1/3 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file, we find that the complainant had purchased Sony Experia-M Model C2004 from the OP No.1 for Rs.13800/- under warranty of one year vide bill number 631 dated 30.11.2013 which is Ex.C-2 on record.  It is the complainant’s case that the said mobile set started giving problems from the very beginning of its purchase for which he approached OP No.2 who issued job sheet No. 14081606677 dated 16.08.2014 which is Ex.C-3 on record. Further, the complainant has stated that he again approached the OP No.2 to collect the mobile set in question after repair but OP No.2 told him that the mobile set in question is having some manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. On the other hand, the OPs No.2 and 3 have admitted in their reply that the complainant has approached  the OP No.2 on 27.06.2014 with some problems in the mobile set in question which were removed.  The OPs have also admitted that the complainant visited the OP No.2 on 23.08.2014 alleging “not charging” however USB connector and label were duly replaced with new one.  

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that OPs No.1 and 2 have categorically admitted that there were   problems of ear speaker, front camera and not charging in the mobile set of the complainant for which he approached OP no.2 and the said problems were rectified by upgrading the software and by replacing the USB connector and label. The complainant has also produced a job sheet number 14081606676 dated 16.08.2014 issued by the OP No.2, Ex.C-3, in which in the column  ASC Comments it is mentioned “Distorted  Sound, No Power and in column Unit Dead it is mentioned “ Yes”.  Surprisingly,  OPs have not stated anything about the issuance of the said job sheet in their reply nor in their evidence.  Moreover, the OPs have not produced any documents which shows that the mobile set in question  after repair was returned to the complainant to his full satisfaction.

7.             Another aspect of the case is that  the OPs No.2 and 3 have specifically stated that  the complainant has not annexed any report of independent expert as defined under Section 2 (1) (a)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regard to any alleged defect  in the said unit. But,  from the perusal of the file, we find that the complainant has produced expert report of  Shri Damanajit Singh, proprietor Singh Connectivity Phirni Road Sunami Gate, Sangrur which is Ex.C-10 on record in which he opined that after thorough checking and examination of the said mobile, as per my experience and knowledge, I have come to the conclusion that there is manufacturing defect in this mobile set and due to that reason the mobile is creating the problems i.e. disordered sound, no power, problem in the mother board, in front camera and un smooth working of the same while operating and its shutting  down automatically when any call is received or dialed. To the contrary, the OPs during the pendency of the complaint have not moved any application before the Forum to get the mobile set examined from their expert with regard to alleged defects and to disclose the actual position that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that handset was suffering from inherent defects which did not admit repair/ rectification.  A similar view was expressed by  the Hon’ble Union Territory  Consumer Commission, Chandigarh in case  namely  Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia  Vs. Ankush Kapoor and others, 2007 (1) CLT 614 which has been cited by the learned counsel for the complainant.    

8.             So, in view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint against OPs No.2 and 3 and direct them to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.13800/- as price amount of the mobile set in question. We further order the OPs No.2 and 3 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- being consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.  It is also ordered that the  complainant shall return the old mobile set in question to the OPs  after receipt of the ordered amount.  

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

April 8, 2015.

 

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                   

Member                Member                           President

 

 

BBS/-