BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.255 of 2014

Date of Instt. 04.08.2014

Date of Decision :25.05.2015

Amandeep Singh, aged about 34 years, Proprietor, son of Davinder Singh, Amand Enterprises, 51, Golden Avenue, Phase-1, Garha Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. New Raja Mobiles, through its authorized signatory, 501, New Model House, Jalandhar-144007.

2. Sony India Pvt Ltd, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

3. Service Point, through its authorized signatory, Sony Service Centre, 233/1, SUS Nagar, Near Preet Hotel, Jalandhar-144001.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Gagandeep Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.NPS Thind Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Opposite parties No.1 & 3 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that Aman Enterprises is a small proprietorship concern owned by Amandeep Singh. Amandeep Singh being the proprietor of Aman Enterprises is competent to file the present complaint. The complainant replying on the name of the opposite party No.2 in the mobile handset market, purchased a Sony Xperia C C2305 from the opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.R-2773 dated 22.3.2014 for Rs.18,200/-. To the utter surprise of the complainant said mobile handset after few days of purchase started giving problems to the complainant. The mobile handset was showing no network most of time, problem in data cable, started remaining hanged and problem in power switch of the mobile handset. Because of these defects/ problems the complainant could not make or receive calls with said mobile handset. The complainant brought the problems, which he was facing with regard to the mobile handset in question to the notice of the opposite party No.3 in the month of April 2014 but the opposite party No.3 without rectifying the problems, put off the complainant by saying that parts are to come from the opposite party No.2 and told the complainant to come after 15 days. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.3 after 15 days, but the opposite party No.3 again put off the complainant without rectifying the grievances/problems which the complainant was facing with regard to aforesaid mobile handset and told to the complainant to come again after a week. The complainant as instructed by the opposite party No.3, again approached the opposite party No.3 after a week, the opposite party No.3 at that kept the mobile handset in question and issued the job card and changed the data cable of the mobile handset in question and assured the complainant that the problems/grievances faced by the complainant with regard to mobile in question has been rectified. But to the utter surprise of the complainant, the defects/problems in the mobile in question were not rectified. The complainant pin pointed to the opposite party No.3, but opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that with passage of time the problems faced by the complainant with regard to mobile in question will be rectified. But the problems in the mobile handset in question persisted. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.3 on 15.6.2014, the opposite party No.3 opened job card bearing No.W114061500598 and kept said mobile of the complainant. The opposite party No.3 told the complainant to come again to take mobile handset in question after removal of defects/ problems as pin pointed by the complainant. The complainant when again approached the opposite party No.3 to receive the aforesaid mobile handset, the complainant was astonished to see that the defects as pin pointed by him in the mobile handset in question were not rectified and the defects/problems were there in the mobile handset in question. The opposite party No.3 failed to rectify the problems faced by the complainant with regard to the mobile handset in question. The mobile handset is lying with the opposite party No.3. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 3 did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte. However, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that as per the records of the company the complainant had purchased a Sony Xperia C bearing model No.C2305 on 22.3.2014 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications by the opposite party No.1 and after satisfying himself with the condition of the mobile phone. Opposite party No.2 provided a warranty of one year on its purchase from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by its and can not be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. It is submitted that the complainant admittedly, after enjoying the subject mobile for three months without any sort of defect approached the authorized service centre i.e opposite party No.3 for the very first time on 9.6.2014 raising the issues of sim and network problems however, upon conducting inspection, the software was required to be updated which was duly upgraded accordingly on free of cost basis as the same was in the warranty period and the subject mobile phone was collected by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant never approached any of authorized service centre of the opposite parties with regard to any issue of whatsoever nature which draws a strong presumption that the subject handset was working in the perfect condition. It is submitted that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.6.2014 to the answering opposite party which was duly replied by the opposite party No.2 vide its reply dated 5.8.2014 stating the complainant is not approachable through his given contact number. However, the request was made by the opposite party No.2 to visit service centre in case of any further issues however, the complainant despite receiving the sincere reply of the opposite party No.2 did not pay any heed towards the said request and went ahead to file the captioned consumer complaint. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CA/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/5 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. It is not disputed that complainant has purchased the above said mobile on 22.3.2014 from opposite party No.1. According to the complainant, soon after purchase, the mobile handset in question developed various defects and he visited opposite party No.3 i.e service centre but the defects in the mobile handset were not rectified. According to the complainant, he again approached opposite party No.3 on 15.6.2014 as the defects had not been rectified and opposite party No.3 issued a job sheet but when he again visited opposite party No.3 to receive the mobile handset, he was astonished to see that the defects in the mobile handset had not been rectified and the defects were still there in it. According to the complainant, the mobile handset is lying with opposite party No.3. However, the opposite party No.3 has not come present to deny the allegations of the complainant. In its written reply, opposite party No.2 has pleaded that the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for the first time on 9.6.2014 and software was required to update which was updated accordingly free of cost as mobile handset was in warranty period. According to opposite party No.2, the complainant never approached any of authorized service centre thereafter. However, the complainant has placed on record service job sheet dated 15.6.2014 issued by opposite party No.3 to show that he had visited opposite party No.3 on 15.6.2014 which belies the version of opposite party No.2 that after 9.6.2014 the complainant never visited any authorized service centre of the company. According to the complainant, the mobile handset is still with opposite party No.3. The complainant had approached the opposite party No.3 during the warranty period of one year and even the present complaint was filed by him during the warranty period. As per terms and conditions of the warranty, the opposite parties are liable either to repair the mobile handset or to replace it. In the job sheet dated 15.6.2014 Ex.C2 the problems reported by the complainant are mentioned as not able to make or receive the calls and further sim network problem.

7. In the above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted against opposite parties No.2 and 3 and they are directed to rectify the defects in the mobile handset free of cost and handed over the same to the complainant with fresh warranty of six months or in the alternative to replace it with new one or to refund its price to him. The complainant is further awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

25.05.2015 Member Member President