Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 371.
Instituted on : 19.08.2015.
Decided on : 22.09.2016.
Jagvir Singh s/o Sh. Dhana Ram R/o H.No.1179 Sector-3, HUDA Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Sai Security Systems, Near Malabar Guest House, Green Road, Haryana-Rohtak-124001 through its authorized signatory.
- Sony Mobiles, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director/Concerned Officer.
- Mobile Store Limited, Community Center Market, Saket, Delhi-110017 through its Authorized signatory.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Dalbir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Mobile phone model Sony T2 Ultra Black Mobile phone from opposite party no.1 on 25.04.2014 vide
Invoice No.3559/488 amounting to Rs.24993/- having one year free warranty/replacement. It is averred that just after purchase of the said mobile, it started creating problems e.g. hanging issue, display started to turn black and screen turned off and the complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 many times but the opposite party no.1 did behave properly with the complainant and his counsel and also did not entertain the complaint of the complainant regarding defects in the mobile. As such it is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant approached the opposite parties for the first time on 19th December 2014 i.e. after nine months of usage. Thus it is denied that the there was any problem regarding the display of the handset or phone being hung. It is submitted that complainant is making false, unsupported and baseless allegations on the opposite parties. It is averred that complaint is thus a pressure tactic and nothing more. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the alleged mobile. It is averred that the O.Ps have done necessary software upgrade on the phone and has also replaced a part of the handset free of costs. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, affidavit Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per invoice Ex.C3 dated 25.04.2014 the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.24993/-. It is also not disputed that the alleged handset was defective and as per job sheet dated 19.12.2014 issued by opposite party no.1 placed on record as Ex.C4 the software was upgraded and the set was OK and as per job sheet Ex.C5 dated 03.02.2015 “part was replaced, software upgraded and set OK”. Complainant also served a legal notice Ex.C1 but the same was not replied by the opposite parties.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 25.04.2014 and as per the job sheet Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 the defects appeared on 19.12.2014 and 03.02.2015 i.e. during the warranty period. As per complaint, affidavit filed by the complainant the mobile set could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties during the warranty period despite repeated requests of the complainant. In this regard it is observed that the defect in the phone appeared firstly after 8 months of its purchase which shows that the complainant had used the mobile set uninterruptedly for 8 months but the same could not be repaired properly by the opposite parties within warranty period. Hence it is a fit case where lump sum compensation is justified. As per statement dated 21.09.2016 made by ld. counsel for the complainant, the mobile set in question is in the possession of complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant shall hand over the mobile set in question with the opposite parties and in turn opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer shall pay the lump sum compensation of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.09.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
……………………………..
Komal Khanna, Member
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
