Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/810

Inderjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sony Mobile Comunication (India) Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Singh

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                C.C.No.810 of 27.11.2014

                                                          Date of decision:30.01.2015 

Inderjit Singh, Senior XEN Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited & resident of 243, Gurbagh Colony, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

                                                          ….Complainant.

                                       Versus       

1.M/s Sony Mobile Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd.,2^nd Floor A-3, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

2.M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd., SCO-38-39 G, Opposite Police Station, BRS Nagar Market, Ludhiana-141001.

3.M/s Aroma Instant Services( Sony Authorized Service Centre), SCO-39-G(LGF), BRS Nagar Market, Opposite Police Station, Ludhiana-141001.

                                                …Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                  

Present:       Sh.Rajiv K.Bhatia, Adv. for complainant.

Ops ex-parte.

                                                ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT.  

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Inderjit Singh(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against M/s Sony Mobile Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd.,2^nd Floor A-3, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi and others(hereinafter in short to be described ‘Ops’), directing them to replace the said defective mobile set with some another better new model or to refund the bill amount to the complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum besides Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one mobile make Sony Xperia Z/Black bearing IMEI No.355666057256082 from M/s Deekay Electronics 4167, St.No.5, Beantpura, Samrala Chowk, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana vide bill No.RCHD-2898 dated 4.10.2013 for an amount of Rs.33,800/- with the assurance that mobile phone set is of a high quality and no other mobile has any match with the same available in the market at present and with one year warranty on the said mobile and that in case of any defect to the said set within the warranty period, same would be rectified free of cost or will be replaced with a fresh piece of mobile. Soon after its purchase, the complainant started using the said mobile set but soon after the use, the complainant noticed that mobile set has a defect and is having hanging and lagging problem and it stopped working completely. After some time, it was handed over to OP3, who admitted the fault in the said mobile set and replaced the same with a new set bearing IMEI No.355666057156530. Thereafter, after five months, the same problem started repeating and it was again handed over to OP3, who again changed the set but having the same IMEI number. But this set within one month, so called new set developed the same problem again and the complainant again handed over the set to their service centre on 225.9.2014 with request to replace the set with some other better model because this model of their mobile has proved to be a cause of inconvenience, harassment, mental pain and unaccountable agony to the complainant. Thereafter, despite repeated approach with the OP3 and despite sending email dated 29.9.2014, neither any reply was given nor the request of the complainant was complied with. The complainant got served the Ops with registered legal notice dated 15.10.2014 posted on 16.10.2014 calling upon them to replace the said defective mobile set with some another better model new set or to refund the bill amount to the complainant alongwith interest but despite receipt of the said notice, Ops failed to do so. Such act and conduct of OPs for supplying the defective mobile handset to the complainant is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notices of the complaint, OP2 and OP3 failed to appear despite service and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.01.2015 by this Forum, whereas notice of the complaint was sent to OP1 through registered on 10.12.2014 but the same was not received back and as such, after expiry of 30 days of period, Op1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt.14.01.2015 of this Forum.  

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidene affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the ex-parte evidence of the complainant.

5.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

6.                Perusal of the record reveals that learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C1 copy of registered legal notice dated 15.10.2014 sent to the Ops, Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C5 copy of retail invoice issued by Deekay Electronics qua the purchase of the mobile set in question on 4.10.2013, Ex.C6 to Ex.C9 copies of job cards issued by the service centre of Ops and Ex.C10 copy of email sent by the complainant to the Ops.

7.                Since, the OPs did not appear and contest the present complaint, so evidence adduced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.

8.               From the allegations of the complainant as well as the evidence on record, it is apparently clear that complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question i.e.Sony Xperia Z/Black from M/s Deekay Electronics, vide bill No.RCHD-2898 dated 4.10.2013 Ex.C5 for an amount of Rs.33,800/-. Further, it is proved fact on record that mobile in question was not working properly under the guarantee period of one year due to some defect as it was giving the problem of hanging and lagging and it had stopped working completely and the complainant had handed over the same to OP3 i.e. the service centre of Ops, who had replaced the handset in question which fact is evident from copy of retail invoice/job card Ex.C6. Further, it is a proved fact on record that despite replacing the handset in question by the OP3, the same problem remain persisted and the complainant had deposited the handset in question with OP3 for repair which was replaced twicely which fact is evident from copies of job cards Ex.C7 to Ex.C9. Further, it is a proved fact on record that the complainant had again deposited the handset in question with OP3 on 25.9.2014 with the request to replace the set with some other better model. Further, it is a proved fact on record that despite repeated requests and despite sending email Ex.C10 by the complainant to the OPs, they failed to remove the defects or to replace the mobile set of the complainant. Since, it is proved on record that the OPs have failed to remove the defects in the mobile of the complainant and due to non working of the mobile of the complainant, complainant has failed to use the mobile in question, which he had purchased for his personal use. Thus, Ops are proved to be deficient in rendering proper services.

9.                In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we direct OPs to carry out the necessary repair of the mobile of the complainant, which was purchased by the complainant vide invoice Ex.C5, and make it proper functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by replacing the defective parts, if any, required without any costs or in the alternative, to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model without any costs or in case, the same is not available, to make refund of the entire amount of mobile in question to the complainant and further, for causing sufferance and harassment to the complainant, OPs are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed as Rs.4000/-(Four thousand only) to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

                 (Sat Paul Garg        )                     (R.L.Ahuja)

               Member                                         President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:30.01.2015

Gurpreet Sharma