DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1381 of 2009 Date of Inst: 14.10.2009 Date of Decision:14.06.2010 Rakesh Gulshan s/o Sh.Bhale Ram resident of Village Bhuna, District Fatehabad, Haryana. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s Hotspots Retails Pvt. Ltd., Booth No.150, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Manager Kuldeep. 2. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication Company (India) Pvt. Ltd., IV Floor, Dakha House, 18/17, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Sunil Dixit, Adv. for complainant Sh.Vikas Awasthy, Advocate for OP-1 OP No. 2 exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Rakesh Gulshan has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to:- i) pay Rs.17,200/- being the price of the mobile set. ii) pay a sum of Rs.One lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Any other relief or direction which this Forum may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile set (make Sony Ericsson) vide bill dated 11.10.2008 for Rs.17,200/- under the Care Pack Scheme of OP-1. The said mobile phone was covered under warranty of two years against liquid & physical damage and one year physical warranty. According to the complainant, the mobile set in question was having some manufacturing defect. Therefore, he handed over the same to OP-1 vide job sheet No.017 dated 11.04.2009. The complainant requested OP-1 to give standby set till the mobile set is repaired but to no effect. It has been pleaded that the OP-1 failed to repair the handset despite his repeated visits. The complainant was asked by OP-1 to avail 50% amount of the prevailing cost of the handset as there is a big manufacturing defect and the same is not non-repairable. According to the complainant, OPs failed to repair the mobile set and to return its price despite his requests which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In its written statement, OP-1 admitted that the mobile phone in question has been purchased for Rs.17,200/- on 11.10.2008 under the Care Pack Scheme. It has been pleaded hat OP-1 does not provide any warranty for the quality of performance of the product manufactured by OP-2. It has been denied that any assurance was ever given to the complainant that the service under care pack scheme would be free along with replacement. It has been denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the set in question. It has been admitted that the complainant approached it with the handset on 11.04.2009. However, it has been denied that it ever promised to the complainant about the 50% cash back for the defective handset. It has been pleaded that OP-1 is not bound to provide any standby set to the complainant during the period of maintenance of the defective mobile handset. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied by the OP-1. In these circumstances, according to OP-1 there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part the complaint deserves to be dismissed qua it. 4. OP-2 duly served but it failed to appear in person or through counsel. Therefore, OP-2 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.11.2009. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP-1 and have perused the record very carefully. 6. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the bill dated 11.10.2008 whereby the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.17,200/-. Annexure C-2 is the warranty card which shows that the phone in question is covered under warranty of two years against liquid & physical damage and one year physical warranty. Annexure C-3 is the copy of the job card dated 11.04.2009 whereby the complainant handed over the mobile set to OP-1 for effecting the necessary repairs. The complainant in his affidavit deposed that the handset in question has not been returned after its repairs. In the written statement filed by OP-1, it has not been stated that the mobile set has been repaired or returned to the complainant. Non-returning of the mobile set itself shows that the mobile in question might be suffering from some inherent defect and the same is not repairable. Thus, OPs have failed to return the handset after its repair to the complainant, which amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 7. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to give a sum of Rs.17,200/- to the complainant being the price of the mobile phone in question. OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation. 8. This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.22,200/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides costs of litigation. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 14.06.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Cm Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
