DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No.227 of 2014 Date of Institution: 21.07.2014 Date of Decision: 23.02.2015
Vijender Kumar Bansal, R/o H.No.138, Kirti Nagar, Jharsa Road, Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Priya Cellular Hut, Shop No.115-116, Sector 14, Main Market, Gurgaon through its Proprietor.
- M/s Shitij Telecom, Sony Authorized Service Centre, Shop No.115, GF, ARK Tower, Sector-14, Gurgaon through its Manager.
- M/s Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India/Sony India, U&1: VR 1 centre, IInd Floor, Plot No.83, Sector-29 City Centre, Gurgaon through its Manager.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.RAGHVINDER SINGH BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Virender Kumar Bansal, Complainant in person.
Sh.Nitin Gupta, Adv for OP-1
Sh. Ran Vijay, Adv for the OP-2 & 3
ORDER R.S.BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.
The complainant alleged that he has purchased Sony Mobile Phone, Model C2 104, IMEI No.356605052039787 manufactured by OP-3 from its authorized dealer OP-1 for a sum of Rs.16,600/- vide Invoice No.1255 dated 03.08.2013 (C-1) with one year Warranty. He has further alleged that after one month of its purchase the handset started giving troubles i.e. “Network up down, Some time memory corrupt, Memory Card not reading, Enter Button (touch) and Camera not working”. He visited the authorized service centre of the manufacturer i.e. OP-2 on 30.09.2013, 13.12.2013, 20.01.2014 and 03.03.2014 but they failed to put the Mobile Phone in order and the job cards were taken by OP-2 at the time of delivery after repair. He again went to OP-2 on 02.06.2014 and its Mother Board was changed vide Job Card dated 02.06.2014 (C-2) but the Mobile set again started giving trouble and again, it was taken to OP-2 and its Mother Board was again changed vide Job Card dated 16.07.2014 (C-3) but the OP-2 failed to rectify the problem which shows that Mobile Phone has some manufacturing defect and thus, the OPs haves adopted unfair trade practice by selling a defective handset set and thus, they are also deficient in providing services. The complainant prayed that he is entitled to replacement of the mobile phone with new one of the same model or refund its price Rs.16,600/-. He also claimed compensation of Rs.11,000/- besides cost of litigation Rs.5500/- or any other relief deem fit by this Forum. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents referred above.
2 OP-1 in its written reply while denying the claim of the complainant has taken objections that complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP as he has not come to the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts before this Forum. However, he has denied that complainant has purchased one Sony Mobile Phone Model C 2104, IMEI No.356605052039787 from answering OP-1 vide Invoice No.1255 dated 03.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.16,600/-. He has admitted that OP-1 is a retailer and is involved in the business of sale and purchase of Mobile Phones of different companies just on a marginal profits and is not a manufacturer. Being a retailer, OP-1 does not incur any liability for any manufacturing defects or mal-functioning of the mobile handset. It is only the manufacturer who is solely responsible for any kind of defect in its product. He has denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant. The written reply is supported with affidavit of Smt. Beena Saini Proprietor of OP-1.
3 OP-2 & 3 in their joint written reply while denying the claim of the complainant have taken objection that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. They have given best services to the complainant as the following action:
First Complaint No.W114052804224 dated 28.05.2014, ASC Shitij Telecom
Symptom: Can’t charge/Can’t connect charger
Repair Action: Board Swap Handling
Replaced IMEI:356605059574588
Delivered: 02 June 2014
Second Complaint :W114071600371 dated 16.07.2014,ASC : Shitij Telecom
Symptom: Audio problem with handset/Touch screen doesn’t work
Repair Action: Board Swap Handling
Replaced IMEI:356605051628671
Delivered on: 16.07.2014
Thus, the grievances of the complainant have been redressed by the answering OP each time. It is further alleged that whenever a party alleges any manufacturing defect, the same has to be proved with an expert report or opinion. Except the allegations of the complainant no other cogent or convincing evidence has been filed. The complainant has not submitted any expert report or opinion as required u/s 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part the answering OPs. The complaint is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed with costs. The written reply is supported with affidavit of Priyank Chauhan, authorized representative of OP-3.
4 We have heard the parties and appraised the material on record carefully. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above and after perusing the record available on file we are of the considered opinion that complainant has purchased Sony Mobile Phone, Model C2 104, IMEI No.356605052039787 manufactured by OP-3 from its authorized dealer OP-1 for a sum of Rs.16,600/- vide Invoice No.1255 dated 03.08.2013 (C-1) with one year Warranty. The complainant has alleged that after about one month the mobile phone started giving problem like “Network up down, Some time memory corrupt, Memory Card not reading, Enter Button (touch) and Camera not working”. Consequently, he contacted OP-2 the Service Centre on 30.09.2013, 13.12.2013, 20.01.2014 and 03.03.2013 but the Mobile Phone could not be put in order properly and the Job Cards were taken by OP-2 at the time of delivery of the Mobile Phone. He again visited OP-2 and deposited the handset with OP-2 vide Job Card dated 02.06.2014 and they replaced its Mother Board (C-2) but the handset was giving the problems. He again visited OP-2 who again changed its Mother Board vide Job Card dated 16.07.2014 (C-3). The complainant alleged that still the Mobile Phone is suffering from defects whereas OP-2 and 3 have specifically alleged in their written reply that complainant has been given best customers service and his grievances have been redressed lastly on 16.07.2014 but thereafter the complainant has never approached the service centre of OP-2 which means there was no defect in the handset after 16.07.2014. However, the complainant has also failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence to prove that after 16.07.014 his handset became defective and it was taken to the Service Centre OP-2 or any other authorized service centre of the manufacturer. Thus, the complainant failed to prove his case regarding manufacturing defect in the handset. He has also failed to produce any expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect. Thus, the OPs are not deficient in providing services to the complainant. The complaint has no merit, it fails and stands dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.
Pronounced in open court.
Dated: 23.02.2015.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach)
Member
