BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.51/15.
Date of instt.: 19.03.2015.
Date of Decision: 21.08.2015.
Sahil Kumar S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, R/o House No.255/17, near Gyarh Rudri Mandir, Ward No.28, Dayanand Colony, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal-136027.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Pushpak Enterprises, Building No.1835, Opp. Sec. 17, Near Aggarwal Dentish (Sony Authorized Service Centre), Tehsil and District Kurukshetra-136118 (Hr.) Phone-293192, 9896000989.
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31 Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
3. Surprise Gifts marketing agent of Nokia, Samsung, Sony Ericson, Motorola and Spice Mobiles Phone Karnal Road, Opposite Old D.C. Residence Kaithal-136027.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.S.Malik, Advocate for the opposite party No.2 (already exparte).
Ops No.1 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 26.03.2014 the complainant purchased a mobile handset model No.”Sony-xperia-C2305, battery No.358095059612240 for a sum of Rs.19,500/- vide bill No.12507. It is alleged that after a lapse of about 11 months, the above-said mobile handset was not working properly. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.1 and deposited the handset with the Op No.1 vide job sheet No.W115022801033. It is further alleged that after the expiry of 2 days, the complainant visited for delivery of mobile handset after removal of defects but the Ops failed to hand over the same to the complainant and delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 30.04.2015.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C7 and closed evidence on 15.06.2015.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence available on the file.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a mobile handset model No.”Sony-xperia-C2305, battery No.358095059612240 for a sum of Rs.19,500/- vide bill No.12507 dt. 26.03.2014. Ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that during the warranty period, the above-said mobile handset became defective and the same was not working properly. The complainant approached the Op No.1 and deposited the handset with the Op No.1 vide job sheet, Ex.C2 No.W115022801033 and reported the defects of hanging, not able to make or receive calls, others, charging & calling and software problem but the Op No.1 failed to remove the said defects from the above-said mobile. The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of service job-sheet, Ex.C2, copy of e-mail, Ex.C3, copy of legal notice, Ex.C4, postal receipts, Ex.C5, C6 and acknowledgement, Ex.C7. In the service job-sheet dt. 28.02.2015, Ex.C2, in the column of customer complaint, the defects are mentioned that Hanging, not able to make or receive calls, other, charging & calling & software problem which means that the said defects arose in the mobile handset within the warranty period as the mobile was purchased on 26.03.2014 but the Ops did not remove the said defects from the mobile handset. The complainant also made complaint through e-mail dt. 02.03.2015, Ex.C3 to the company and complainant also sent legal notice on 05.03.2015 to the Ops but the Ops neither give reply to the said legal notice nor they took any action for removal of defects from the defective mobile. On the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 30.04.2015. Though, the Op No.2 is proceeded against exparte but his counsel appeared. The counsel for Op No.2 has not filed any written arguments and he has stated only that the complainant has to prove its case independently. The evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops are adopting unfair trade practice and are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
6. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.12507 dt. 26.03.2014. However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.19,500/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with cost of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges to the complainant. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order till its realization, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.19,500/- from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.21.08.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
