BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No  :1147 of 2009

Date of Institution :  12.08.2009

Date of  Decision   :  06.01.2010

Ashwani Ananad, aged 52 years, son of Sh.B.D.Anand, resident of H.No.55, Sector 7, Panchkula.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]   M/s Sony India (P) Ltd., (Sony Ericsson), SCO No.162-163, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2]   Essar Telecom Retail Ltd., SCO No.101, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

3]   The Salora International Ltd., SCO No.237, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

          DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL     MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.R.K.Bamal, Adv. for complainant.

              Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Adv. for OP No.2.

OP No.1 and OP No.3 exparte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

          Concisely put, the complainant purchased one mobile hand set of Sony Ericssion, Model P-IL from OP NO.2 on 4.6.2008 for Rs.16,729/- vide Ann.P-1.  The said handset started giving problem from the very beginning of its purchase with regard to software hanging; message problem; show error-11 &  menu/application slow etc. and therefore, it was deposited with OP No.3, the authorized service centre, for necessary repairs on 11.8.2008, who returned it on 11.11.2008 with an assurance that it would not give any problem.  However, the said defects reoccurred in the mobile set even after repairs, as such it was again taken to OP No.3 on 20.2.2009, who returned it on 21.2.2009 with an assurance that it would not give any problem and in case it would give any such problem, the handset would be replaced with new one or its price amount would be refunded. It is averred that the said mobile set was still not functioning properly and therefore, it was again deposited with OP No.3 on 21.2.2009 in the evening and it was kept by OP No.3 upto 25.2.2009 for repair but the defect could not be removed being manufacturing defect.  Thereafter the set was again deposited with OP No.3 on 4.3.2009 and then on 10.3.2009 for repairs and since then it was lying with OP No.3.  It is averred that the official of OP No.3 has told that they are unable to repair/remove the defect in the mobile set being manufacturing defects.  Then complainant visited the OPs to either replace his mobile handset with new one or refund its price amount, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint alleging the above acts of OPs as gross deficiency in service, which caused the complainant great mental & physical harassment and financial loss.

2]        Notice was served to the OPs. The Representative of OP-1 appeared and sought time to file reply and evidence. After that none appeared on behalf of OP-1. Hence OP-1 suffered exparte. However, reply & evidence was filed by OP No.2. None appeared on behalf of OP-3, accordingly it was also proceeded exparte.

3]        OP No.2 filed reply and admitted the sale of mobile set in question.  It is denied that the OP No.2 ever retained the mobile handset in question for repairs or replacement.  It is stated that they are merely retailers and had nothing to do with repair of the handset. It is also denied that the handset in question was defective or suffered from any manufacturing defect.  It is further stated that answering OP has nothing to do with the repair or replacement of the mobile in question and the same could be dealt with only by OP NO.1 Manufacturer i.e. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. or OP No.3-Authorised Service Centre of OP Company. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that complaint qua OP No.2 be dismissed.      

4]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]        We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]        It is the contention of the complainant that he purchased a mobile handset of Sony Ericson, model P-IL, from OP-2 dated 4.06.08 for a sum of Rs.16,729/- which was manufactured by OP-1.  Annexure C-1 shows that the above said mobile is under warranty for the period of one year i.e. from 4.06.08 to 3.06.09.  Annexure P-2 to P-7 show that the above said mobile started giving problem during the period of warranty and the complainant took the mobile for necessary repairs on 4.06.08, 11.08.08, 20.02.09, 21.02.09, 4.03.09, 9.03.09 and 10.03.09.  It is the contention of the complainant that he deposited the mobile for repair last on 10.03.09 and the same is lying with OP-3.  The officials of the OP-3 stated that they are unable to repair the defect of the said mobile. As OPs did not listen to the grievances of the complainant, he served a legal notice dated 9.04.09 but OPs did not bother to reply. 

7]        In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has sufficiently proved his case by way of documentary evidence placed on record. Therefore in these circumstances, we accept the complaint and hold the OPs deficient in rendering service to the complainant.  It is the responsibility of the OP-2 and OP-3 to get the said mobile set repaired at their own expenses and deliver it to the complainant in proper functioning condition, which in the present case has not been done.  There is thus, deficiency on the part of the OPs in not repairing the mobile hand set or in alternative not replacing it with the new set within the warranty period. 

8]        In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving that there was deficiency in service rendered by the OPs. The complaint therefore succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP-3 is directed to rectify the defect in the said set and deliver it to the complainant in proper functioning condition to his satisfaction without charging anything. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.1100/- towards costs of litigation within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order failing which OPs would be liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest @9% p.a., since the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.08.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. It is also made clear to the OP-1 and OP-2 that in case the said mobile in question seems to be non repairable the same should be replaced with a new one of the same configuration and model and supply it to the complainant within the above stipulated period of 30 days.

          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.