Punjab

Sangrur

CC/325/2016

Gaurav Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S New Mobile Hut - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Goyal

10 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 325                                                                                                 

                                                                   Instituted on:  16.03.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    10.10.2016

 

Gaurav Garg son of Shri Vijay Pal resident of Gopal Nagar, Sunam, District Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

                          Versus

 

1.       M/s New Mobile Hut, SCO no.42, Leela Bhawan, Near Canara Bank, Patiala through its Proprietor.

 

2.       Sankalp Electronics Nankiana Chowk, Opposite KT Royal Hotel, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

 

3.       M/s Sony India Pvt. Limited, A-31, Mohan Co-operative  Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, through its M.D/ G.M. 

    ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :       Shri G.S.Toor, Advocate.

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Gaurav Garg complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Sony X-peria Z-1 ( while Colour) mobile set from the OP No.1 for Rs.26000/- vide retail invoice number 28590 dated 28.01.2015 under one year warranty. After 2-3 months of purchase,  the said mobile set started giving problems i.e. mike and vibrator for which the complainant approached OP No.1 who kept the mobile set with it and returned the same after rectifying the defects. Thereafter the complainant was facing the problems in making and receiving calls. This time the OP No.1 returned the set stating that he has replaced the speaker  of set. Despite of set being repaired by OP No.1 number of times, same problems along with some other problems  continued to create inconvenience to the complainant in using the mobile set. On the advice of the OP No.1 the complainant approached the OP no.2 on 28.09.2015. Finally  on 26.10.2015, the OP no.2 returned the mobile set of the complainant vide job sheet dated 26.10.2015 by stating that he has replaced the defective parts and also updated the software but the problems persisted.  Then the complainant visited the shop of OP no.1 and requested him to get the set replaced with a new one but  OP no.1 flatly refused to do so. There is manufacturing defects in the mobile set due to which it could not be rectified despite of repeated repairs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

 

i)      OPs be directed to either replace the mobile set  with a new one with fresh warranty or to refund  its price i.e. Rs.26000/-  long with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

 

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

 

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs no. 1 to 3, it has been denied that  the issue with respect to the aforesaid mobile handset  arose within 2-3 months from the date of purchase.  It is submitted that the complainant approached OP no.2  for the very first time  after using the handset for eight months. It is further submitted that the complainant approached the only one and at time also the issue was duly resolved.  It is stated that after enjoying  the handset for 8 months, the complainant approached OP no.2 on 28.09.2015  raising an issue with the microphone and loudspeaker of the aforesaid mobile handset which was without any delay resolved.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             In his evidence, the complainant has produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs  has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith  annexure R-1  to R-4  and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had purchased  Sony X-peria Z-1 (white colour)  from OP No.1  on 28.01.2015 for an amount of Rs.26000/- under warranty of one year which is evident from the retail invoice number 28590 dated 28.01.2015 which is Ex.C-1 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that after 2-3 months  the set in question started giving problems of mike  and vibrator for which the complainant approached OP no.1 and thereafter problems of making and receiving calls were occured and the OP No.1 replaced the speaker of the set. Again the same problem persisted.  Besides that the complainant noticed  that his mobile set has bent/curved down from the middle portion. Despite of set being repaired by OP No.1 number of times, same problems along with some other problems  continued to create inconvenience to the complainant in using the mobile set. On the advice of the OP No.1 the complainant approached the OP no.2 on 28.09.2015 who kept the mobile set  and  finally  on 26.10.2015, the OP no.2 returned the mobile set of the complainant vide job sheet dated 26.10.2015 by stating that he has replaced the defective parts and also updated the software but the problems persisted.  To prove his version the complainant has produced on record retain invoice Ex.C-1, job sheet dated 26.10.2015 Ex.C-2 and legal notice dated  08.12.2015 Ex.C-3.

5.             Against the version the complainant, it is an admitted case of the OPs that on 28.01.2015   the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the OP No.1 and complainant approached the OP no.2 on 28.09.2015  raising an issue with the mobile set  which was duly  resolved . It has been further stated that the complainant  has satisfactorily used  the set for eight months and even thereafter timely service was provided to him and there was no inherent defect in the above said mobile set.

6.             The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that "  though  the set was straightened up by the OP no.1 but still there is small curve in the upper portion of the set and  it seems  that  the material used  in the manufacturing  of the set is defective and of very poor quality".   But,  surprisingly the complainant has not produced on record any document/ evidence which proves the version of the complainant. Even the complainant  has not produced on record any expert report which shows that the material used in the manufacturing of the mobile set in question  is defective and is of very poor quality  and there  is small curve in the upper portion of the  set in question.

7.             The complainant has produced on record  copy of job sheet dated 26.10.2015 Ex.C-2 wherein  it has been mentioned  in column  Customer complaint " not able to make or receive calls, others"  and  in lower column i.e. comments it has been mentioned that " parts replaced  s/w updated" .   It has been duly signed by the complainant  after receiving back the mobile set in question from the OP no.2 . It is matter of common knowledge that   if there was any problem at that time then the complainant had to make a note   of unsatisfied but the complainant did not do so.

8.             It has been admitted by the OPs that the complainant has approached them  for some problems which were duly resolved. From the facts stated above, we  feel that the complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question.  But, from the perusal of the record/ file we  find that the problems in the mobile set in question were occurred during the warranty period. So, we are of the view that the OPs are liable to repair the mobile set in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.     

9.             For the reasons recorded above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to repair the  mobile set in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

10.           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

                October 10, 2016

 

 

 

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

               Member                  Member                       President

 

 

BBS/-