Haryana

StateCommission

A/1287/2018

SONY INDIA PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRANT SHARMA

30 Aug 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.1287 of 2018

                                                Date of the Institution: 27.11.2018

                                                Date of Decision: 30.08.2019

 

 

1.      Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-18, Mohan Co-operatives, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi-110044.

 

2.      M/s SSR Care Center (Authorized Service Center), through its authorized signatory, Shop No.9 & 10, New Balaji Market, Near BMG Mall, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari (Haryana).

 

3.      M/s. Sanghi Mobile Care, Rewari Road, Near Deewan Petrol Pump, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

 

 

 

…..Opposite Parties-Appellants

 

VERSUS

 

Naresh Kumar son of Shri Daulat Ram, resident of Balawas Jamaipur, Tehsil and District Rewari (Haryana).

 

…Complainant-Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

 

                                                        

Present:-    Shri Vikrant Sharma, counsel for the appellants.

                   Respondent-Naresh Kumar in person.

 

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)  

 

          The opposite parties have filed the instant appeal against the order dated 23.08.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, whereby the complaint filed by complainant Naresh Kumar was allowed and the opposite parties directed jointly and severally to either make the handset defect free at their own cost and if not possible then to give a new handset of the same price and same brand or to refund the price of the defective handset to the complainant.

2.      According to the appellants, when the complainant was not satisfied with the working of the handset purchased by him, a new handset was made available to him, who vide his letter dated 15.04.2017 stated that in view of the fresh handset being made available to him, he was fully satisfied and as such he did not want to pursue the matter.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellants states that as the appellants were ex parte before the learned District Forum, the letter dated 15.04.2017 duly signed by the complainant could not bring it the notice of the learned District Forum.

4.      The respondent, who is present in person, states that as he had already been supplied with fresh handset, he is fully satisfied with the product and as such he does not have any claim pending against the opposite parties. He admits the genuineness of the aforementioned letter. Accordingly, he states that he has no objection, if the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by him is dismissed.

5.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the complainant, who has appeared in person, the State Commission is of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the complaint to be dismissed.

6.      Resultantly, the appeal is accepted, impugned order dated 23.08.2018 is set aside and the complaint preferred by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is hereby dismissed. 

7.      The statutory amount of `13,500/- deposited by the appellants while filing the appeal shall be refunded to them against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 30.08.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.