BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.305 of 2016
Date of Instt. 19.07.2016
Date of Decision: 20.03.2019
Hitesh Bhardwaj aged about 42 years R/o H. No.1185, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Sony India, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044 Through its Managing Director/Director.
2. Neeru Electronics, 18-19, Sanjay Gandhi Market, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar Through its Prop./Partner.
3. Service Point, 233/1, SUS Nagar, Near Preet Hotel, Jalandhar Through its Prop./Partner.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Pritpal Singh, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Robin Budhiraja, Adv Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased a Sony D6653/Xperia Z3/Black Mobile Phone having IMEI No.355098061868381, vide Invoice No.M-114 dated 22.06.2015 for Rs.37,200/- from OP No.2, who is the authorized agent/retailer of the OP No.1. OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the Sony Mobile, whereas the OP No.2 is authorized agent of the OP No.1, OP No.3 is approved and authorized service centre under the care and supervision and the administrative control of the OP No.1.
2. That on 19.03.2016, the complainant found some problem in his handset and he visited the office of OP No.3 and told the problem regarding the display, auto off and disconnection of calls to the engineer and the engineer advised the complainant to book the handset, then as per advise, the complainant deposited the handset,vide Job Sheet No.W116031903079 and OP No.3 delivered the handset on 02.04.2016, after changing the mother board of the handset and assured the complainant that the handset is working properly, but with the utter shock and surprise, the complainant found that there is a same problem in the handset and then the complainant visited the office of OP No.3 on 06.04.2016 and again deposited the handset, vide Job Sheet No.W116040602815 dated 06.04.2016 and the OP No.3 returned the handset to the complainant on 06.05.2016 after a month again after changing the motherboard of the handset and the OPs this time again assured the complainant that now the handset is working properly, but again after few days, the same problem was occurred in the handset and the complainant again deposited the same on 25.06.2016 with OP No.3, but to the utter shock and surprise, the OP booked the handset is out of warranty and told the complainant that if the complainant wants to get repair the handset, then the same will be on chargeable basis and issued the copy of Job Sheet. It is clear that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set of the complainant, since the date of its purchase and due to the said defect, the mobile set of the complainant is not working properly. There has been a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and unfair trade practice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one or to reimburse the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.37,200/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, all the OPs served and appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking a plea that the mobile in question has been admittedly purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 and at that time, detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the aforesaid mobile has been known to the complainant. After enjoying the said handset for 9 months, the complainant approached OP No.3 on 19.03.2016 raising an issue of phone cannot power on. The OP No.3 without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the handset. After carrying out the necessary inspection, the OP No.3 replaced the motherboard of the said handset and delivered the handset back to the complainant in proper working condition. It is further submitted that nothing was charged from the complainant for carrying out the said replacement of motherboard. It is further averred that the OP No.1 provides a limited warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. It is further averred that the complainant again approached OP No.3 on 06.04.2016 raising an issue of phone cannot power. The OP No.3 without any delay again inspected the handset. After inspection, the OP No.3 without any delay replaced the motherboard of the handset and delivered the handset back to the complainant in a proper working condition and again nothing was charged from the complainant. Then again complainant approached OP No.3 on 25.06.2016 raising an issue of line in display. This time the complainant approached OP No.3 at a stage when the warranty period was already expired. Despite that the OP No.3 replaced the motherboard of the handset and that too free of cost. However, the warranty was already expired and once the warranty period is expired, any service with respect to any product would be on chargeable basis. But here in the present case the OP No.3 did not charge anything from the complainant. It is further submitted that surprisingly the complainant did not collect the handset from the OP No.3 despite knowing the fact that the same was in a proper working condition and issue in the same was also duly resolved. The intention of the complainant seems to gain wrongfully. The complainant has already used the handset the for almost one year. Free of cost services were provided to the complainant during the warranty period and even after the said warranty got expired and also alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset from OP No.2 and its warranty is one year. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence two affidavits Ex.OP/A and Ex.OP/B along with some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the case file very minutely.
7. After considering the over all factors, we came to conclusion that the contents of the complaint to the extent that the complainant purchased a mobile Make Sony from OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1 on 22.06.2015, after paying a consideration of it of Rs.37,200/- and it is also further not denied that the said mobile was got some defects and thricely it was deposited with the OP No.3, who is none else rather service centre of the OP No.1, manufacturing firm.
8. The contention of the complainant is controverted by the OP simply taking a plea that whenever complainant approached to the service centre of the OP No.1, a proper service was provided to the complainant, his mobile handset was immediately repaired and whatsoever parts is required to be replaced, the same was also replaced and handed over to the complainant on each occasion in a proper working condition. Apart from that the OP also alleged that on the 3rd occasion, the mobile phone of the complainant was received by OP No.3 on 25.06.2016, means after expiry of the warranty period despite that the same was repaired free of cost without charging any penny, but the complainant intentionally did not collect the mobile from the service centre of the OP No.1, which shows that the intention of the complainant is malafide, just to grab unwarranted compensation from the OPs and in order to give strength to the averments made in the written reply, the OP has examined Priyank Chauhan, whose affidavit is Ex.OPA and then also produced on the file affidavit of Ravneet Singh, Mobile Service Engineer of the OP Company, who categorically deposed in his affidavit Ex.OP/B that he inspected the mobile in question when it was lastly brought and its motherboard was replaced free of cost, the said repair was done after expiry of the warranty period and further alleged that there is no defect in the mobile phone and on the basis of evidence of the engineer, the counsel for the OP alleged that there is no further defect in the mobile phone, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
9. We have sympathetically considered the plea taken by the OP and find that the mobile handset of the complainant was deposited with the service centre i.e. OP No.3 firstly on 02.04.2016 and a Job Sheet Ex.C-2 was issued by the Service Centre and it is admitted by the OP that the motherboard of the mobile handset was replaced and then again the mobile phone was deposited with the Service Centre of the OP on 06.05.2016 and again the motherboard of the mobile phone was replaced and handed over to the complainant, regarding that the Job Sheet Ex.C-3 was issued and then lastly the mobile phone was again deposited in the Service Centre of the OP on 25.06.2016, again the same problem occurred in the mobile phone and regarding that the Job Sheet Ex.C-4 was issued. If we analyzed the above three Job Sheets, which are issued within the span of two months, itself show that there is a major manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and due to that defect, the mobile phone had to be deposited again and again by the complainant in the Service Centre of the OPs. It is not a question that the said defect occurred in the motherboard in the nine months of after purchase, the defect may be occurred in the 9th month or in the 12th month that will be considered within a warranty period and initially the problem started in the 9th month of the purchase of the said phone that means that is a manufacturing defect occurred within a warranty period and the same defect was occurring again and again within the span of two months. So, this defect if, occurred after the expiry period will be connected to the date on which first time brought in the service centre i.e. 02.04.2016. So, the OP cannot take a plea that on 25.06.2016, the warranty period had expired. Moreover, the evidence of the Ravneet Singh, Service Engineer of the mobile obviously stated in his affidavit Ex.OP/B that he inspected the mobile set and replaced the motherboard of the handset free of cost without any charges even after the expiry of the warranty period, but he did not say even iota of word that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. So, silence of the said engineer itself established that when the mobile phone had to bring in the service center thricely within two months, having the inherent manufacturing defect, whenever such defect is proved, then the OP has to replace the mobile phone or to reimburse the price of the same. So, accordingly, by applying this formula in the present case, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
10. As an upshoot of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to reimburse the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.37,200/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 22.06.2015, till realization. Further OPs are directed to pay compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
20.03.2019 Member President
