CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.970/2008

MR. VIKRAM SINGH

R/O 1458, SECTOR-55, FARIDABAD

OFFICE:- C-45, NIZAMUDDIN EAST,

NEW DELHI

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                             

Vs.

M/S SALORA INTERNTIONAL LTD.

D-13/4 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,

PHASE-II, NEW DELHI

                                  …………..RESPONDENT

                                 Date of Order:30.08.2018

O R D E R

H.C. Suri - Member

This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed by Mr. Vikram Singh, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, against (1) M/s Salora International Ltd. and (2) Technocare Service Centre, hereinafter referred to as OP-1 and OP-2 respectively.   However, vide orders dated 09.02.2011, counsel for the complainant decided to give up OP-2.   The brief facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone on 15.12.2007, Sony Ericsson W-660i, IMEI No.357155017833188 manufactured by OP-1 vide bill no.HR/01055/00001/7515 for Rs.10,799/- from Mobile Store Faridabad.  It is submitted that the performance of the handset was not good from the date of its purchase and in August 2008 the complainant was informed by some of his clients, and then he also noticed that his phone was not working properly and thereafter he noticed that there is signal problem and voice disturbance during call, apart from continuous recharging problem which would take three to four hours for recharging.  It is submitted that the customer care of service provider airtel company was contacted and they responded and suggested that the complainant should change the handset and then switching over to Nokia handset did bring relief to the complainant when it was found that there was no disturbance in the voice and signals were proper.  The complainant realized that the handset was defective and faulty as there was some manufacturing defect.  The complainant thereafter approached the authorised service centres of Sony Ericsson for the solution to the problems of continuous hanging, low signalling and battery backup but they refused to issue job memo for the repair and provide the services.  The complainant further submits that a legal notice dated14.10.2008 was also served upon OP-1 asking them to change the handset within 15 days and on a call having been received the complainant approached another service centre i.e. Technocare Service Centre who refused to entertain the complaint.   The complainant submits that failure to provide services amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP, and due to the faulty handset, the complainant has suffered pecuniary loss and for which the OP is liable to compensate the complainant.   The complainant prays for refund of the purchase cost and compensation, litigation expenses etc.

In its WS, the OP has submitted that the present complaint is misconceived and groundless and is liable to be dismissed.  It is submitted that the complaint shows the OP as the manufacturer whereas the OP is merely a dealer and that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.   It is submitted that the OP is a distributor of mobile phones manufactured by Sony Ericsson.  It is submitted that the legal notice was issued on 14.11.2008 and not on 14.10.2008 and was properly responded by the OP.   The OP has denied all the allegations that the handset had any manufacturing defect because according to the OP the company passes all its products through all quality control tests and then only the same is sold to the ultimate consumer, and that the allegations of defect, negligence or deficiency, etc. are wholly misconceived and groundless.

The complainant filed his rejoinder/replication to the written statement of the OP, and denied all the averments of the WS which do not admit those mentioned in the complaint.    It is submitted that the phone was shown for rectification of defect to another centre as well on 5.12.2008  as per the instructions of Ms. Mini Kapoor, service head of OP, but the problem of  hanging, week signalling and voice disturbance during calls could not be rectified.   The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit deposing all those facts mentioned in the complaint and rejoinder.   Similarly evidence by way of affidavit of the AR of the OP has also been filed.  Both the parties have also submitted their written submissions as wel, in addition to the oral arguments.

We have gone through the case file carefully.

It is an admitted fact that the mobile phone was purchased by the complainant on 15.12.2007 from Essar Telecom Retail Ltd., SCF-73, Sector-15, Main Market Faridabad.  In para 2 of the complaint it is stated that “since the purchase the performance of handset was not good but in the month of August 2008 the complainant came to know when some of his clients had complained him regarding non availability of phone and then he noticed that the phone was not working properly and also there is signal problems in the handset and the voice disturbance was also in the phone during the call and there was continuous recharging problem with the phone and it was taking three to four hours for recharging”. 

It is very strange that the handset was not working properly from the beginning but in almost nine months the complainant has not made any complaint on any service centre.  On what basis the complaint has been filed against OP-1 as OP-1 has neither sold the handset to the complainant nor is the manufacturer of the handset.  Sony Ericsson is the manufacturer of the handset and warranty is always issued by the manufacturer.  Sony Ericsson has not been made a party.  We do not know why notice was sent to OP-1.  Perhaps notice was sent to OP-1 just to create territorial jurisdiction. 

It is the case of the complainant that on 13.10.2008 he was in Tis Hazari Court and was talking on his phone, it suddenly switched off.  Thereafter he approached to the “Carnio Telecom Pvt. Ltd. at 6E Kamla Nagar, Delhi, authorised service centre for Sony Ericsson, the solution of the same, who refused to issue job memo for the repair and failed to provide the services.  Thereafter the complainant talked the customer care even they did not responded regarding the continuous problems of hanging, low signalling and battery backup, hanging and charging problem.  No complaint has been filed against “Carnio Telecom Pvt. Ltd.  No job card has been placed on record.  It is stated that thereafter the complainant served a legal notice dated 14.10.2008 on OP-1.  OP-1 has stated that the legal notice was not served on 14.10.2008 but was served on 14.11.2008.  OP-1 has specifically stated that it has duly responded the legal notice on 16.12.2008 and asked the complainant to visit OP-1 as it was ready to provide service as per the warranty terms but the complainant never visited OP-1. 

The contention of the complainant that one Ms Mini Kapoor of OP-1 requested the complainant to show the phone at another service centre is totally denied by OP-1 and OP-1 further stated that OP-1 was itself maintaining service centre then why it will ask the complainant to visit other service centre.  In fact the complainant has not placed even a single job card regarding his visit to any service centre. 

The contention of the complainant is that on the asking of Ms Mini kapoor the complainant approached another service centre i.e. Technocare Service Center, F-17, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi which was initially impleaded as OP-2.  The said service centre received the handset and asked the complainant to come after half an hour.  After half an hour the handset was handed over to the complainant but it hanged again but OP-2 replied that it happened as the software is changed but not issued any job card.  It is very strange that despite of the rude behaviour on the part of OP-2 and not issuing of job card, why proceedings against OP-2 were dropped by the complainant on 09.02.2011.  As already stated, the complainant has not placed even a single job card on record.  The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. 

For the aforesaid reasons, no deficiency is made out against OP-1.  The complaint is dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

    (RITU GARODIA)                                    (H.C. SURI)                                                   (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                                                MEMBER                            PRESIDENT