BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                             Complaint Case no.98 of  2017       

                                                          Date of Institution:          2.5.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:     08.09.2017

Hanumant Singh aged about 42 years son of Sh. Basant Singh Raghav, resident of 101, D-Block, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Authorized person.

2. Chugh Telecom, Customer Care Sony India Private Limited, Shop No.81, 82 and 32, New M.C. Market, Sirsa through its Authorized person.

3. Sony India Private Limited, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, through its Authorized person.

                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………… MEMBER

                   SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. Sanjay Sihag, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

          In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile handset of Sony company model No. Sony M5 Dual for a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the opposite party no.1 vide bill no.4959 dated 2.12.2015 with guarantee of one year. That just after few months of its purchase, the complainant was shocked to see that the mobile set becomes defective and it started creating problems like network, heating problem, over hanging, poor display and poor battery back-up. The complainant approached to op no.1 for solution of problems who referred him to op no.2 for removal of above said problems. The op no.2 checked the mobile handset and got deposited the same vide job sheet dated 24.9.2016 and after due satisfaction he admitted that the problems occurred due to manufacturing defects and after some times the op no.2 returned it back to the complainant with the assurance that if the same problems will arise again then the mobile handset will be liable to be changed. The complainant had faced the same problems several times and every time on contact to op no.2, the op no.2 gave some false assurances and returned the mobile handset to the complainant but the defects were not removed by op no.2 and every time he returned back the mobile in the same condition to the complainant without taking any action to solve the same. The complainant also issued a legal notice on 10.11.2016 upon the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply and submitted that after enjoying the said handset for almost 10 months, the complainant for the very first time approached op no.2 on 24.9.2016 raising an issue of hanging in the said mobile. The op no.2 without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the handset. Upon inspection, it was observed that the handset was working normally and as per its specification. No trouble was found in the handset, only software was required to be updated. However, the same was updated and the handset was delivered back to the complainant in a proper working condition. It is further submitted that after the first visit made on 24.9.2016, the complainant never approached any of the service center  raising any sort of issue. The complainant directly filed this complaint on 2.5.2017 on the pretext of baseless allegation. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.

3.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.P1 and documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P5. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Priyank Chauhan as Ex.R1.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The perusal of record reveals that complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that complainant had purchased mobile in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- against bill No.4959 dated 2.12.2015. Further there are allegations that just after few months of its purchase, the complainant was shocked to see that mobile became defective and it started creating problems like network, heating problem, over hanging, poor display and poor battery back up. He approached to op no.1 for solution of the problems on which op no.1 advised to contact op no.2. The op no.2 checked the mobile and got deposited the same vide job sheet dated 24.9.2016 and after due satisfaction he admitted that problem occurred due to manufacturing defects. As per averments of the complainant, he has been approaching the ops time and again but they did not pay heed to the requests of the complainant and even despite serving of legal notice. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.P1, bill Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, courier receipt Ex.P4 and legal notice Ex.P5. On the other hand, ops have only furnished affidavit of Priyank Chauhan as Ex.R1. The perusal of this affidavit Ex.R1 reveals that the deponent has not denied sale of the mobile nor has denied that mobile was suffering from defects, though the ops have alleged that same was repaired to the satisfaction of complainant. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that definitely the mobile of the complainant is suffering from some defects and further mobile of the complainant was within warranty period when he approached the service center and it is legal obligation of the ops to provide better services to the complainant in case there is any defect in the mobile set.

6.                In view of above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order on production of mobile by the complainant and in case the same is not repairable and suffers from some manufacturing defect, the ops shall be liable to replace the mobile without any cost within further 15 days and if it is found that mobile of the same make and model is not available with the ops, they will make refund of the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.35,000/- to the complainant within further period of 30 days. The ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant as composite compensation and litigation expenses. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                                   President,

Dated:8.9.2017.                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                      Member                Member