BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.59 of 2016
Date of Instt. 01.02.2016
Date of Decision :07.12.2016
Harvinder Kumar age 38 years son of Sh. Munshi Ram, resident of H.No.E.M.-119, Rasta Mohalla, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
M/s Mobile House, H.O. Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.
M/s. Sony India (Mobile Service Station), 233/1, S.U.S. Nagar, Near Preet Hotel, Jalandhar.
M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, through its General Manager.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Anuj Mehta Adv., counsel for complainant.
Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 Exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased Mobile Sony Experia Z1 from opposite party No.1 on 26/2/2015 for sale consideration of Rs. 25,500/- having model No. C6902-359774050311395. He purchased the said mobile on the basis of advertisement given by opposite party No.3 wherein published that the said mobile set is waterproof upto 1 meter and 30 minutes and is having the latest technology and after purchasing the said mobile, the opposite party had given one year warranty of the said mobile to the complainant and assured that no fault will be occurred in the said mobile during the said period and it is a waterproof set and the complainant even otherwise obtained the insurance of the said set by paying extra premium for it.
2. That since the purchase of the said mobile, the same has not been working properly and on 7/9/2015, the complainant gave a complaint in the office of opposite party No.2 regarding problem of hanging, battery and ear speaker, charging cap loose and mike and the same was taken by the opposite party No.2 from the complainant for its repair on 7/9/2015 vide job sheet No. W115090706530. Thereafter, the officials of opposite party No.2 returned the said set back to the complainant with the assurance that the same will not create any problem in future and thereafter, on 23/9/2015, the complainant was going to market and there was a lot of rush in the market and suddenly one Auto hit the bike of the complainant due to which, he fell down and the set fell into a water for just few seconds and due to loose capping, which has not been properly repaired by the opposite party No.2. The set became in-operative and in this regard, the complainant again approached the office of opposite party No.2, where they stated that the set will be repaired and the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs. 27,528/- for its repair and the complainant was shocked with their statement and then he approached the opposite party No.4 who had insured the mobile of the complainant at the time of its purchase at the place of opposite party No.1. The complainant on 16/10/2015 handed over his set to the insurer of the said set to whom the complainant had paid extra premium and now after getting another amount of Rs. 735/-, they got the mobile of the complainant repaired, when the applicant issued legal notice to the opposite party as well as to the said insurer. However, the opposite parties did not bother to even reply the same. The complainant is now really fed-up with the services of the opposite parties and he has been harassed so much with the mobile set of the opposite parties. The complainant further wasted his valuable time due to their unfair trade practice of the opposite parties and as such, the instant complaint filed with prayer that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to return the amount of Rs. 25,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 25/12/2015 till final realization and further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties but despite service, opposite party No. 1 to 3 did not come present and ultimately, opposite party No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte.
4. In exparte evidence, complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex. CA and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed exparte evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the evidence as well as documents and find that the complainant in order to establish that he purchased the mobile set make Sony Experia Z1 model No. C6902-359774050311395 for Rs. 25,500/- on 26/2/2015 from opposite party No.1 and at that time, the guaranty was given that the mobile set is waterproof and accordingly, the complainant used the mobile but the working of the mobile set was not proper and accordingly on 7/9/2015, the mobile was deposited with the opposite party No.2 with the problems of hanging, battery and ear speaker, charging cap loose and mike and the same was repaired by the opposite party No.2 and returned to the complainant but again on 23/9/2015, the complainant while going by his motorcycle and all of sudden, he fell down and his mobile also fell down into water for just few seconds and due to loose cap, mobile set became dead and this factum was admitted by opposite party in the second job sheet Ex. C4 and even in the said job sheet, it is clearly mentioned that the mobile set was dead due to water damage and it is clear that the mobile of the complainant was became dead due to fell into the water and if is water proof then the problem should not be occurred. In order to prove that the opposite party has given guaranty of waterproof, the complainant have brought on the file the document Ex. C2 related to opposite party No.3 M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd., manufacturing firm of the said mobile. In the said document Ex.C2, it is categorically mentioned as under:-
“Water resistant up to 1 meter and 30 minutes”
From the above guaranty, it is established on the file by the complainant that the mobile set having model No. C6902-369774050311395 is water resistant but despite that the mobile became dead due to fell into the water for a few seconds and it is clearly unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and furthermore, the evidence of the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged because neither of the opposite parties bother to appear to contest the case despite service. So, under these circumstances, we have no earthly ground to discard the unrebutted evidence of the complainant and therefore, we find that complainant is entitled for relief claim.
6. In the light of above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to return the price amount of the mobile i.e. Rs. 25,500/- and also pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and further pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-. Entire compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the complainant will entitled to get interest on the aforesaid entire amount at the rate of 9% from the date of filing complaint till realization. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
7. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
07.12.2016 Member President
