Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/455/2014

Kesho Ram S/o Shankar Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kamal Gift Gallery - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kumar

24 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                               Complaint No…455  of 2014.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 5.11.2014

                                                                                               Date of decision: 24.12.2015.

 

Kesho Ram aged about 45 years son of Shri Shankar Lal, resident of H. No. 1089, Devi Bhawan Bazar, Aasan Wali Gali, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Kamal Gift Gallery, Near Police Chowki, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Partner/Proprietor.
2. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044 through its M.D.  
3. M/s Ambey Electronic Service, DS-14, First Floor, Jail Land, Sector-01, HUDA Market, Ambala-134003 Haryana, through its Partner/Proprietor.

 

                                                                                                         …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

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

               Sh. Sachin Kumar, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.    

               Sh. Anil Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.    

               Respondent No.3 already ex-parte vide order dated 8.1.2015.

             

ORDER

 

1                      Complainant Kesho Ram  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the mobile set with new one and also to pay loss suffered by complainant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and further to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment etc. alongwith Rs. 2200/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia EI Dual D2105 Mobile Phone bearing IMEI No. 352946061474282 & 352946061474290 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 8700/- vide cash memo No. 1531 dated 7.6.2014(Annexure C-1). The aforesaid mobile was carrying a warranty of one year in all respect from the date of its purchase and after fifteen days from the purchase the said mobile phone started creating trouble as the same is not functioning properly and immediately he informed the OP No.1 and finally he has lodged the complaint and sent the mobile phone to his service centre i.e. OP No.3 and OP No.3 after checking it changed its software and returned the same to the complainant on 2.8.2014 by stating that there was some manufacturing defect in the software and the same has been changed. Thereafter, again on 25.9.2014 the same problem has occurred in the mobile phone of the complainant and the complainant immediately informed the OP No.1 in this regard but the Op No.1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to do so. When despite so many requests OPs did not replace the mobile of the complainant with new one then complainant issued a registered AD Legal notice (Annexure C-3) but the OP No.1 did not bother to reply the same nor replaced the mobile set of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 &2 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OP No.3 remained absent and OP No.3 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 8.1.2015. OP No.1, while filing the written statement, denied all the facts of the complaint except admitting that OP No.1 is dealer of OP No.2 and mobile in question was purchased by the complainant from him vide Bill No. 1531 dated 7.6.2014 for an amount of Rs. 8700/- and prayed for dismissal of complaint against the OP No.1.

4.                     Op No.2, while filing its written statement took some preliminary objections such as complaint is vexatious, baseless and abuse of process of law. On merit, it is submitted that the complainant has never approached the OP No.3 or the service centre with any complaints whatsoever regarding the hand set in question. The complainant has concealed the true facts from this Hon’ble Forum and making false and baseless allegations against the OP No.3. It has been also mentioned that Sony India Private Ltd. Company is a reputed company and known by its product. After receiving the notice from the court in this complaint a letter dated 7.1.2015 (Annexure R-2/4) was sent to the complainant for providing information like serial number, job reference number or contact number. However, no response to the said letter has been received. Further it has been mentioned that complainant herein has failed to annex any report of independent expert as defined in section 2(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with reference to any alleged defect in the mobile phone. Even the complainant failed to mention any manufacturing defect in the handset in his complaint. The above stated facts clearly indicates that the complainant has filed the present complaint in order to attempt to make wrongfully gains from the Op company and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

5.                     To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of bill as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job card dated 1.8.2014 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of legal notice dated 9.10.2014 as Annexure C-3, Postal receipts as Annexure C-4, Acknowledgement as Annexure C-5, undelivered legal registered notice as Annexure C-6 and closed his evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 closed his evidence without tendering any evidence and stated that the written statement may be read in evidence whereas counsel for Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Priyank Chauhan, Sony India Private Ltd. as Annexure RW2/A and documents such as certified copy of resolution as Annexure R2/1, Photo copy of authority letter issued by Kamal Gift Gallery as Annexure R2/2, Photo copy of booklet/important information of Sony as Annexure R2/3 and letter dated 7.1.2015 sent to Kesho Ram complainant by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure R-2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                     We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

8.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone on7.6.2014 vide Bill No. 1531 for a sum of Rs. 8700/- from the OP No.1 manufactured by Op No.2 and OP No.3 is the service centre of OP No.2. The only plea of the complainant is that the mobile phone in question is defective from the very beginning and not working properly since its purchase and referred job sheet Annexure C-2.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 hotly argued at length 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.2. Only on 1.8.2014 complainant visited with the Op No.3 i.e. Service Centre vide job sheet No. AE6/FY14-08/0000032 dated 2.8.2014 with the problem of hanging and restarting in the mobile and after checking the same was returned on 2.8.2014 to the complainant. Except this one, no other complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant. It has been specifically denied that some problem have again occurred on 25.9.2014 as mentioned in the complaint by the complainant.

10.                   From the perusal of the job sheet dated 1.8.2014 (Annexure C-2) it is clear that the complainant might have faced some problem regarding hanging or restarting of the mobile set in question 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. The argument advanced by counsel for OP No.2 that the complainant never approached to Op No.2 & 3 and further a letter dated 7.1.2015 Annexure R-2/1 was sent for providing IMEI number, details of contact number and job reference number etc. is not tenable because from the perusal of job sheet (Annexure C-2) dated 1.8.2014 it is clear that contact number and job sheet number was available with the service centre i.e. Op No.3 of the OP No.2 in which all the details have been disclosed/mentioned.  

11.                   After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.2 & 3 for not providing proper services to the complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled for relief.

12.                   Resultantly we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 &3 to repair the mobile phone of complainant and set it in proper working order free of costs and also to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copy 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: 24.12.2015.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.