Haryana

Ambala

CC/92/2015

Ms. Priya - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.R. Jain Electronics, - Opp.Party(s)

Jai Pal Singh Chuhan

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :    AMBALA

                             Complaint Case No.           :         92  OF 2015

                             Date of Institution                :         06-04-2015

                             Date of Decision                  :         29.03.2016

 

Ms. Priya daughter of Sh. Om Parkash Wadhwa, resident of H.No. 987 Near Surya Mata Mandir, Village Lalru, Lalru Mandi, District Mohali (Punjab).

                                                                                                                                                :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                        Versus

1.                 S.R.Jain Electronics, Near Kalka Chowk, Ambala City,  through its Proprietor.

2.                 Ambey Electronic Service, Authorised Service Centre, DS-14, First Floor, Jail Land, Sector-1, HUDA Market, Ambala- 134003  through its authorized signatory.

3.                 Sony India Private Limited, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi -110044, through its authorized Signatory.

:::::::Opposite Parties.

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:             SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present:-             Sh.J.P.Chauhan, Adv. counsel for complainant

                             OPs No.  1 to 3 ex-parte.

                  

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a C6902/XPERIA Sony Mobile 8.40 handset bearing IMEI No. 358094056842850  vide invoice No.810 dated 10/6/2014 in a sum of Rs.39,000/- from OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of OP No.3 with a warranty of 1 year with the assurance of replacement with new one in case of any complaint within the warranty period. After some time, in the last week of October, 2014, the said mobile phone started giving battery problem, vibrator sound problem and mic problem. So, the complainant at once contacted OP No.1 who advised the complainant to get the same checked from OP No.2 being authorized service centre of OP No.3. On 28-11-2014, the complainant approached OP No.2  and after examining the mobile handset,  OP no.2 advised the complainant to leave the set at least for one week and thereafter she can take the same in good condition and at the assurance of OP No.2, the complainant left her mobile with the OP No.2  and thereafter opposite party no.2 lingered on the matter under one pretext or the other and at last after about one month, OP No.2 flatly refused  to rectify the defect of the mobile handset by disclosing that the mobile set in question is having manufacturing defect and demanded charges for examining the mobile  in question but the complainant refused to pay the same since mobile set was within the warranty period and as such OP No.2 did not return the mobile handset and the same is lying with OP No 2 since then. Thereafter complainant approached OP no.1 either to replace the mobile set in  question with new one or to return the cost of mobile handset but  OP no1 misbehaved with the complainant and refused to return the cost. As such, the mobile in question sold by the OP no.1 to the complainant was having manufacturing defect  from the beginning to which the Ops failed to rectify or replace  with a new one  within the warranty period which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para of the complaint.

 

 

2.          Notice of complaint  was  served  upon all the OPs but  OPs  No 1 & 2 failed  to  appear before the forum despite service  through registered post and as such  they  were  proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15-6-2015  whereas OP no.3 appeared through counsel and sought adjournments for filing  reply but  failed to appear during the proceedings of the case on 10-11-2015  and even did not bother to submit reply. As such, he was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.11.2015.

 

3.           To prove her contention,  complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1  to C-9  and closed her evidence.

 

4.                We have heard the complainant’s counsel  and perused the documents placed on file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant  is  that  she purchased  the mobile set in question  on  10-6-2014 vide invoice No. 810 costing Rs.39,000/- with a comprehensive warranty of 1 year and after sometime, the mobile  phone started creating  problems  like battery problem, vibrator sound problem and mic problem but the said problems were not rectified by the OPs No. 1 & 2 despite many visits to the service centre of the OP company which is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and thus appropriate directions be issued to the OPs.

 

5.                At the very outset, it is an admitted fact on record that the mobile set in question was sold by OP No.1 to the complainant on 10-6-2014 vide bill (Annexure C-1) of OP No.3 company. It is also not disputed that the mobile set was having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase meaning thereby that the Ops were bound to rectify the defects of the mobile set in question during the period of warranty but they failed to rectify the defects of battery, vibrator sound & mic problems etc. as mentioned in the Job sheet No. W114112803692 dated 28/11/2014 (Annexure C-2) and the said contention of complainant remained unrebutted as OPs did not bother to contest the matter despite appearance and thus we have no option except to believe the version of the complainant.

                   So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that mobile set sold to the complainant by the OPs was having inherent defect from its very beginning and the same was not rectified by the OPs despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre at Ambala. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OPs. Accordingly we accept the complaint and direct the OPs No.2 & 3  to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of order:-

                (i)         to return Rs.39000/- i.e. cost of the mobile set sold to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing  of complaint to till  its  realization.

               (ii)         to pay  Rs. 3000/- as  compensation  for  harassment and mental pain.

             (iii)           also to pay Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation.

Further the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 29.03.2016                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                              ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                 ( PUSHPINDER KUMAR )

                                                                                                       MEMBER