BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 561 of 21.09.2015. Date of Decision: 15.06.2016.
Suneel S/o. Sh. Balbir Singh, r/o.814 CETC, Army Camp Doraha, c/o.56 APO, Tehsil Payal & District Ludhiana.
..… Complainant
Versus
- Ravinder Watch Company, Near Punjab National Bank, Railway Road, Doraha (Ludhiana).
- M/s. Sony India Private Limited, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (India)
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
MS. BABITA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : In person.
For OPs : Sh. Jagdeep Pal Singh, Advocate.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by claiming that he on inducement of OP1 purchased mobile hand set of Sony Xperia E1 Dual IMEI-I No.352946060869540 and IMEI-2 No.35294606086955-7 in black colour for consideration of Rs.7,000/- through invoice No.442 dated 10.10.2014. Since from the first date of purchase, mobile set started emitting trouble because of the hanging and restarting. There was internet connectivity problem and even there was display error. Complainant approached Sony Mobile Service Centre at Hissar, Haryana at SCF-85 UE, 2nd Delhi Road, Hissar on 20.10.2014, 25.10.2014, 18.05.2015 and 01.07.2015. Mobile set was retained by service centre and every time it was returned with assurance that mobile will work properly. However, the mobile hand set was neither repaired and nor replaced. This mobile was purchased at Ludhiana and even the service centre of Samsung Mobile phone has its branches at Ludhiana and as such, this Forum alleged to be having jurisdiction. By pleading deficiency in service, replacement of mobile with new one or repair and rectification of old one free of costs sought. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- even sought.
2. In joint reply submitted by Ops, it is admitted that mobile set in question was purchased for Rs.7,000/- from OP1 on explaining of the features, functions, applications as per terms and conditions of warranty. It is claimed that after purchasing the hand set, complainant approached Ops for issue relating to software up gradation and same was resolved and thereafter, hand set was delivered to complainant. Complainant again approached Ops on 23.06.2015 and after inspecting the mobile hand set, issue was resolved by replacing the receiver and speaker as well as by doing board swap handling. Thereafter, mobile set was returned back to complainant in proper working condition. The issue raised by complainant was resolved by prompt action and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Even it is claimed that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. Merely because the complainant sought repair, due to that alone, it cannot be presumed that mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect. Nothing was charged from the complainant for carrying out the necessary repairs or replacement of the required parts. As per customer friendly policy of Ops, repair/replacement normally done free of costs. As per terms and conditions of the warranty the repair for the defect concerned or the replacement of product (if warranted) will be done and warranty will be for the original warranty period or for 90 days from the date of repair, whichever is longer. Satisfactory offer was submitted by Ops in response to which complainant purchased the mobile set. As complaints of complainant were duly and promptly attended and as such, no inconvenience was virtually suffered by complainant. No expert report got produced by complainant for proving the manufacturing defect and as such, complaint alleged to be based on false allegations. Each and every other averment of complaint denied being incorrect.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and then closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. OP2/A of Mr. Priyank Chauhan and thereafter counsel for Ops closed evidence by suffering two separate statements by claiming that evidence adduced on behalf of OP2 may also be read as on behalf of OP1.
5. Written arguments not submitted, but only oral arguments heard and record gone through carefully.
6. Today complainant Suneel Kumar in course of arguments suffered statement that he does not want the replacement of mobile phone, even though the defective mobile phone is available with him. Complainant is seeking compensation only. Complainant claims that he is ready to return back the defective mobile phone to Ops. As complainant himself is not seeking replacement of mobile phone and as such, prayer in that respect cannot be allowed.
7. Purchase of the mobile set in question from OP1 proved by the copy of bill Ex. C1. Job sheets Ex. C2 to Ex. C4 are produced on record to establish that mobile set in question suffered problem due to which replacement of the swap out parts was done and up gradation of software was done. It is revealed by Ex. C2 dated 11.06.2015. Another job sheet of 06.07.2015 Ex. C3 shows as if mobile set along with battery and back cover was returned. Ex. C4 further shows as if due to problem of hanging and automatic off etc. mobile set in question was deposited by complainant with service centre on 25.11.2014. This problem was not resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant and that is why he sent email Ex. C5 on 10.10.2014 along with snaps of chatting Ex. C6 and Ex. C7. So from this evidence available on record, it is obvious that some defect in the mobile set was there and that is why same was deposited by complainant with service centre of OP2 twice. Nothing was paid by complainant to the service centre for getting mobile set repaired and as such, virtually free of costs services provided during warranty period, due to which deficiency in service on the part of Ops does not remain, particularly when Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a case titled as Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs Vir Pratap (1997) II CPJ 81 has held that where the complaints of the complainant were duly and promptly attended by the opposite party and due evidence qua sufferance of inconvenience not adduced, then complainant is not entitled to any relief. Besides report of expert has not been produced to show the manufacturing defect and even the manufacturing defect not pointed out and as such, it is not a case in which the mobile set in question is having manufacturing defect.
8. As complainant himself has withdrawn the relief qua replacement of mobile set with new one and as such, keeping in view para No.8 of the complaint, it is fit and appropriate to direct OP2 and its authorized service centre to repair the mobile set at earliest. However, complainant has to visit time and again the service centre and as such, he certainly has suffered some tension, harassment and agony, due to which he is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses to some extent.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will repair the mobile hand set in question as and when presented by complainant at the authorized service centre of OP2. This repair will be done free of costs within 10 days of receipt of the mobile set and after such repair, same will be returned back to complainant within this period of 10 days. Compensation for mental harassment, agony and sufferings of amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and litigation expenses Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) allowed in favour of complainant and against the Ops. Liability of Ops to pay compensation amount and litigation expenses will be joint and several. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Babita) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:15.06.2016.
Gobind Ram.
