Haryana

Rohtak

29/2017

Sandeep Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sai Security System - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.S. Soni

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rohtak.
Rohtak, Haryana.
 
Complaint Case No. 29/2017
 
1. Sandeep Verma
Sandeep Verma S/o Sh. Bhup Singh R/o Village Kahanaur District Rohtak.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Sai Security System
M/s Sai Security System Near Malabar Guest House Green Road Rohtak.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 01 Jun 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

 

                                                          Complaint No. : 29.

                                                          Instituted on     : 11.01.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 05.07.2017.

 

Sandeep Verma s/o Sh. Bhup Singh R/o Village-Kahanaur Distt. Rohtak.

 

 

                                                          ………..Complainant.

 

                             Vs.

 

  1. M/s Sai Security Systems Near Malabar Guest House Green Road Rohtak through its Proprietor.
  2. Sony Mobile Communication(India) Pvt. Ltd., A-31, 2nd Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

 

                                                ……….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:       Sh.R.S.Soni, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Harinder Rana, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.

                                     

                                      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 bearing IMEI No.35386307-179339-6 from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.19000/- vide bill No.450 dated 17.01.2016. It is averred that opposite party no.1 assured the complainant that the mobile is water proof and in case of any default there is one year free warranty. It is averred that just after few months of the purchase, it started creating problems. It was having power off problem, camera problem and white screen problem and accidently some water drops fall on the same. It is averred that complainant approached the opposite party no.1 and got deposited his handset for repairing on 24.05.2016 and the same was returned to the complainant by noting down by “warranty void” whereas the phone is water proof and the opposite parties are liable to repair/replace the mobile phone of the complainant. It is averred that despite repeated requests of the complainant, opposite parties refused to repair/replace the mobile set of the complainant. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone of the complainant or to refund the cost of his mobile phone i.e. Rs.19000/- 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 as per record complainant had purchased one Sony XPERIA mobile set for Rs.19000/- on 17.01.2016. It is averred that complainant for the very first time approached opposite party no.1 on 24.05.2016 raising an issue with the screen, camera and application of the aforesaid mobile handset. It is averred that opposite party no.1 without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the handset. Upon inspection it was observed that the conditions of handset was not good, there were scratches on the handset, the pots connectors and the flaps were open. It is averred that the handset was damaged due to liquid ingression. It seems as if the handset was roughly been used by the complainant.  It is averred that opposite party no.1 has thoroughly inspected the handset and gave the above said observation. It is averred that the handset become defective due to fault on the part of complainant in using the handset that resulted in liquid ingression and in that case the warranty terms stands void. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

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.C6 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.C5 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 bill Ex.C3 dated 17.01.2016 the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.19000/- of Sony Xperia on dated 17.01.2016. It is also not disputed that as per job sheet Ex.C1 issued by opposite party no.1 i.e. service centre, the defect in the mobile set appeared on 24.05.2016 i.e. after four months of purchase and the problems were regarding screen white, camera problem, application automatic work, power key button not work. But the opposite parties refused to repair the set on the ground that the mobile in question was liquid ingression and the warranty void due to liquid ingression.  The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the handset in question was water proof and has placed on record document Ex.C6. It is further contended that since the mobile was water proof hence the opposite parties are liable to repair/replace the mobile set in question within warranty. It is contended that since the mobile was not repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period. As such opposite parties are liable to refund the price of handset alongwith compensation to the complainant.  

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile set was become defective within warranty period. But the contention of opposite parties that the mobile was liquid ingression so the warranty was void and opposite parties are not liable to repair the mobile set in question. In this regard it is observed that as per document Ex.C6 the mobile Xperia M4 Aqua Dual is water proof and protected against dust in case all ports and attached covers should be firmly closed. It is also submitted in this document that the device should not be completely put under water. But to prove the fact that the mobile was put under water or the ports cover were not closed, opposite party has not placed on record any document/report. As such the opposite parties were liable to repair the set under warranty but the same was not done. In this regard we  have also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT588  titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others  Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”, as per II (2009) CPJ 240 titled as Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal vs. Partap Chandra Behera & Ors., Hon’ble Orissa State Commission, Cuttak has held that: “Dealer-Liability-Manufacturing defect-dealer requested manufacturer to replace effective goods having sufficient discharged his responsibility, dealer, cannot be made liable for deficiency in service order against dealer set aside in appeal-manufacturer alone held liable to replace defective goods or to refund price thereof”

8.                          In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant. As per the statement made on 01.06.2017 the mobile set in question is with the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that complainant shall hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties and in turn opposite party no. 2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.19000/-(Rupees nineteen thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.11.01.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses 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 allowed 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:

05.07.2017

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                         

                                                          ……………………………..

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member

 

                                                          …………………………….

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.