Delhi

New Delhi

CC/235/2014

Arvind Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Sony Mobile Communction - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/235/14                                    Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Arvind Sharma,

S/o Sh. S.N Sharma,

196-J, 2^nd fl, Ramesh Market,

East of Kailash, New Delhi-65

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. M/s. Sony Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd., (Importer) 4^th FL, Dakha House 17-18, W.E.A, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

 

1. M/s F-1, info Solutions & Services Pvt. Ltd.,

        (Sony Authorized Service Centre)

        206, 2^nd FL, Middle Circle,

        Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

                                        ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

Member: S.R Chaudhary

 

The Complainant had bought a mobile handset with a consideration amount of Rs.19,000/- with a warranty of one year on 31.10.13 but after lapse of 3 months the handset in question started troubling consequently complainant approached OP2 on 27.2.14 as per job sheet attached but OP2 pointed out about product the model of handset is very old model technology which OP1 has marketed the product deliberately. Complainant visited a number of times to OP2 but the said mobile was not rectified. Ultimately OP2 returned the handset to the complainant after a week with assurance that handset will function properly. But it was noticed that after upgrading software, movement of handset was slower than past. Again it was brought to OP2 on 27.02.14 and it was again returned back on 08.03.14. Suddenly internal ram problem averted in said handset on 21.03.14, thus complaint was filed and notice was served but OP proceeded exparte on 26.08.14.

While evaluating exparte evidence, it is experienced that OP deliberately marketed defective products of old configuration system of mobile handset through dealers network to extract money from various innocent consumers under false temptation of modern technology whereas it is proved that the technology in built in handset in question was on old technology pointed out by dealer consequently it created problems one after another which is clear case of unfair trade practices on the part of OP which proves deficiency.

Keeping in view, we direct OP1 to return Rs.19,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest from date of purchase till realization. We also award Rs.2,000/- as compensation for harassment inclusive of litigation expenses and also direct complainant to return defective handset to OP.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

        Pronounced in open Court on ……………….

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER