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.495/2008

SH. NAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA

R-241, VANT VIHAR,

NEAR MANBHAVAN BUTIQUE,

UTTAM NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110059

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

                                    VS.

1.  THE MANAGER

SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,

D-13/4 OKHLA INDUSTRIUAL AREA, PHASE-II,

NEW DELHI-110020

2.  THE MANAGER

SONY ERICSOON LTD.,

DLF, CYBER CITY, SECTOR-25A,

GURGAON, HARYANA

…………..RESPONDENTS

Date of Order: 08.02.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of complainant is that he bought a Sony Ericsson Cell Phone from the HOTSPOTS Retails Showroom on 16.12.2007 and paid Rs.12,200/-for said cell phone. 

It is further stated that within a month of the purchasing of the said phone the battery of the phone became dead and due to faulty battery the phone burnt internally.  Complainant took the phone to OP-1 for repairing on 02.02.2008.  OP-1 kept the said phone for more than a week and when the phone was handed over to complainant the same was not working perfectly but representative of OP-1 convinced the OP that it is perfectly OK and still if the complainant is not satisfied he can leave the phone and same can be collected after 20 days as they have many complaints to attend. 

It is further stated that complainant again started facing the same problem with some other functional problem like sometime he could not hear the caller voice or sometime the phone switched off on its own even during the conversation even though it was duly charged etc.  Hence within ten days of the repair of the phone, the complainant had to visit the OP-1 again for repair of phone.  Complainant had to give the phone for repairing for four times within a period of month. 

It is further stated that when complainant gave his phone for repair on 26.4.08 the service engineer replaced the defective part with older parts and due to this the problem for which complainant has given his phone for repair still existed.  When complaint raised his objection for the same the representative of OP misbehaved with complainant and asked him either to take the phone or leave it.  Complainant took the phone and after 4-5 days the phone again started giving the problem and became dead.  In the month of May 2008 complainant again went to OP-1 to get his phone repaired but representative of OP-1 said that this time complainant has to pay the charges for the repair as they have already repaired the phone number of times.  Complainant resisted the same as the mobile phone was under warranty but representative of OP-1 did not paid any heed to complainant’s request.  Having no option complainant returned with the phone and wrote twice to OP-2 explaining all the problems and requested for replacement of the phone set but OP-2 did not even bother to reply to complainant.  Hence this complaint filed. 

It is stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs as they have sold very defective phone set to complainant and failed to provide the basic facility of better service and the said phone is still lying idle with complainant.  It is prayed that OPs be directed to refund Rs.12,220/- alongwith interest @ 18% and Rs.70,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

OP-1 in the reply took the plea that the handset given to complainant was brand new and was working properly and the burning of circuit may be the result of negligent act of the complaint.  Even after that the handset was properly repaired free of cost and was given to the complainant in good working condition and they have properly complied with the terms of warranty. 

It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part.  It is prayed that complaint be dismissed. 

OP-2 in the reply has admitted that on 16.12.2007 complainant purchased the handset in question after his complete satisfaction.  The handset performed its functions for four months after its purchase and the same clearly proves that the handset was fully functional product.  On 26.04.08 complainant made complaint of handset not working and the complaint was duly attended by OP-2 and complainant did not pay the repair charges.  The handset was repaired to the complete satisfaction of complainant hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.  Thereafter complainant did not make another complaint to OP-2.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and carefully gone through the written submissions of complainant as well as OP-2 and carefully perused the record.

It is not in dispute that complainant purchased a mobile phone from OP-1, dealer of OP-2 on 16.12.2007 for a sum of Rs.12,200/-.  It is proved on record that battery of the phone had some problem and accordingly the phone was taken by complainant to OP-1 on 02.02.2008.  The needful was done and the phone was handed over to complainant on 08.02.2008.  The contention of complainant is that even on 02.02.2008 phone was not properly functioning however representative of OP-1 convinced him that it is perfectly OK and still he is not satisfied, he can leave the phone and collect the same after 20 days.  It is not supported by any document rather the Job Card exhibit annexure P-2 clearly shows that the repairs have been carried out to the satisfaction of complainant and the same is duly signed by complainant.  .  Some problem occurred in the keypad of the mobile set and the same was taken to OP-1 on 22.02.2008.  The jobcard was duly created and the problem was rectified and same was duly certified by complainant as being carried out to his entire satisfaction.  The contention of the complainant in this regard that the repairs were not carried out to his satisfaction is without basis.  Thereafter the phone was taken for rectification of defects on 26.04.2008.  The repair was duly carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant as is evident from the jobcard.  The case of the complainant that in May 2008 he has taken the phone for repair to OP-1 but OP-1 insisted that repair will be carried out on payment basis.  There is nothing on the record to suggest that.  Nothing prevented the complainant to leave his phone there.  No jobcard have been created for that purpose.  It is significant to note that complainant has sent by post two letters to OP-2 regarding the defect in the phone whereby he has stated that his phone is lying dead.  He has nowhere stated that in the month of May he has taken the phone to OP-1 and OP-1 has refused to carry out the repairs without payment.  The purpose of giving warranty is that if any defect is found in the product that defect has to be rectified free of cost.  The same has been done precisely in this case.  It is evident from the jobcard that repairs were carried out to the entire satisfaction of complainant.

Complainant has miserably failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.

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

             (D.R. TAMTA)                                                         (A.S. YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT