CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.219/2012
DR. MANISH GIRHOTRA,
R/O E-55, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-I,
DELHI-110052
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,
A-31, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE,
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110024
………….. RESPONDENT
Date of Order:05.01.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Sony Ericsson Mobile Handset on 18.10.2010 from OP-2. OP-1 is manufacturer of the mobile phone. It is stated that since the time complainant purchased the above mentioned mobile handset, he has been facing lot of problems in the said handset. Complainant visited the authorized service centre of OP at Kamla Nagar for rectification of the problem in the handset and had produced the aforesaid handset before authorized service several times i.e. 09.4.11, 14.5.11, 12.7.11 and 23.8.11. However, despite repeated service by the authorized service centre of OP, the said handset remained defective set. Complainant has even sent emails to OP on 19.7.11 and 25.8.11 in this regard but OP-1 did not reply the said emails.
It is further stated that complainant again lodged a complaint on 30.01.12 and the defective mobile was sent for service on service centre of OP bearing work order No.SE312604101074 dated 31.01.12. The phone was received on 23.02.12 with the false assurance from OP service centre that the defect in mobile has been removed whereas the phone had same problems as earlier. A legal notice was served on 21.11.2011.
It is prayed that OPs be directed to refund Rs.5,050/- for the cost of mobile set, Rs.50,000/- for compensation and Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.
OP in the reply took the plea that upon receiving notice, OP entered appearance and immediately has given an offer of either a refund of the price of the old hand set Rs.5,050/- or a new phone in return of the old handset but complainant refused the same.
Complainant in the rejoinder stated that OP offered a new phone only after the receipt of notice from this Forum. Earlier OP did not offer to replace the mobile phone. Hence complainant was constrained to file this complaint.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for OP has stated that they are prepared to refund the amount of mobile handset which is not acceptable to the complainant stating that he has suffered a lot on account of defective mobile phone and he had to go to crowded place like Kamla Nagar for repair of the handset number of times resulting in wastage of time and energy.
It is evident form the unrebutted testimony of the complainant that the defect in mobile handset was from very beginning and the handset was handed over to the service centre of OP number of times and the same was returned after some days with the assurance that defect has been rectified but in fact defect was never rectified. OP-1 should have immediately replaced the mobile set of the complainant but the same was not done. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP-1 is directed to refund to complainant Rs.5,050/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint. It is a fact that complainant has visited the service centre of the OP at Kamla Nagar number of times, as such he has suffered a lot. OP-1 is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
