Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 100.
Instituted on : 23.02.2015.
Decided on : 01.08.2016.
Rohit s/o Sh. Raj Kumar r/o House No.41 L.Model Town, Near Gulati Sweets Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Om Sai Enterprises Address: Civil Road opposite Petrol Pump Near Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak.
- M/s Sai Security System Address: Near Malabar Guest House Green Road, Rohtak.
- M/s Sony Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd., Address: Second Floor A31, Mohan Cro. Industrial Estate Mathura Road, Delhi-110044.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Mobile phone Sony Model No.SINBX 903 HGFK8 having IMEI No.3556660 55225550 for a sum of Rs.33000/- vide bill no.4121 dated 15.02.2014. It is averred that on 6.11.2014 there appeared defects in the mobile set and the mobile started heating problem while charging the battery. It is averred that on 07.11.2014 complainant went to the opposite party no.1 who advised the complainant to contact opposite party no.2 which is authorized service centre of the company and the complainant deposited his mobile set with the opposite party no.2. It is averred that the same problem again appeared on 27.01.2015 and this time opposite party changed the mobile set of the complainant on 31.01.2015 and given him a used mobile phone but the same was also defective and on complaint, opposite party returned his old mobile phone on the plea that now there is no problem in the alleged phone. It is averred that despite repeated repairs of the opposite party, mobile phone of the complainant could not be repaired due to the manufacturing defect. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant was using his handset without any problem/grievances whatsoever for over 11 months before he approached the opposite parties for the first time ever. It is averred that the opposite parties repaired the handset free of costs. The complainant inspected the handset each time before delivery to him and was satisfied with the services It is averred that the complainant has been offered a refabricated handset which he had accepted on 27.10.2015 as a service solution to his grievance. It is averred that the complainant has managed to malfunction the same and when the complainant approached the OPs again he was offered another refab handset which he has refused to accept even though the same is a part of the service solution that may be offered by the OPs as per terms of warranty. On merits it is submitted that first time the complainant ever had an issue was on 6.11.2014 which speaks volumes about the good quality of the handsets of the OPs. It is submitted that the heating of a handset is not inherent to any handset, the same depends on the usage of each handset by the user of the handset. The complainant was provided prompt service solution. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavits Ex.OPW1/A, documents Ex.OPW1/1 to Ex.OPW1/3 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per invoice Ex.C1 dated 15.02.2014 the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.33000/- from the opposite party no.1. It is also not disputed that the alleged handset was defective and as per service job sheets Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 there were some problems like heating and battery back up etc. which appeared during warranty period which could not be removed by the opposite parties despite repairs.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 15.02.2014 and the defect in the mobile set firstly appeared on 07.11.2014 i.e.within warranty period. It is also observed that the defect in the phone appeared firstly after 9 months of its purchase which shows that the complainant had used the mobile set uninterruptedly for 9 months. It is also on record that he opposite party had given the refabricated mobile set to the complainant but the same was also defective. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that as the mobile set worked without any fault for about 9 months and the defects appeared within warranty period. Hence it is a fit case where lump sum compensation is justified. As per the statement made by the complainant on 27.01.2016the set in question is in the possession of opposite party no.2 i.e. service centre.
8. In these circumstances, it is observed that the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer shall pay the lump sum compensation of Rs.25000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.08.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
……………………………..
Komal Khanna, Member
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
