<br /> DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 347 of 26-12-2008<br /> Decided on : 23-07-2009 <br /> <br /> Pritpal Singh S/o Parkash Singh resident of House No. 7813, Purana Thana Road, Bathinda. ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Salora International Limited, D-13/4 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II,New Delhi – 110020 through its CEO importer of Sony Ericsson Mobile from Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB NYA Vattentornet 22188 Lund Sweden.<br /> 2.New Vishal Electronics Repair Centre, SSD Temple Complex 2/1-AT/C Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Bathinda through its Proprietor<br /> 3.Allied Communications, Shop No. 11, First Floor, Shakti Complex, Bathinda, through its Proprietor <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate, counsel for the complainant<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh.Kawanljot Singh,Advocate counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 3<br /> Opposite party No. 2 exparte.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Sh. Pritpal Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations against the opposite parties that he purchased mobile hand set Model W6101 Sony Ericsson from opposite party No. 2 on 28-04-2007 bearing IMEI No. 35489401-4419780 for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- vide receipt No. 205 dated 28-04-2007. The mobile hand set is manufactured by opposite party No. 1. One year warranty from the date of purchase was provided on his mobile hand set. Immediately after the purchase of mobile hand set, it started giving problem. He approached opposite party No. 2 with mobile hand set for removing the defect and opposite party No. 2 sent his mobile hand set and charger for doing the needful to opposite party No. 3, an authorised service centre. The opposite party No. 3 checked the mobile hand set and charger vide complaint ID No. SESOABHAI0721 and informed him that the charger has gone dead which is liable to be replaced and the charger was replaced with a new one. When he put his mobile hand set on charge with new charger, within few minutes its battery got swollen and leaked in the mobile hand set resultantly mobile hand set was damaged. He reported the matter to opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and requested them to change the mobile hand set and charger, but they refused to do so. He also took defective mobile hand set and charger before opposite party No. 3 within the period of warranty who replaced the old charger with a new one but the new charger was also found defective which led damage to the battery of the mobile hand set. The opposite parties refused to rectify the defect in his mobile hand set and therefore, they have rendered themselves liable for deficient service and also for indulging in unfair trade practice. He is entitled for replacement of the defective mobile hand set and charger with new ones and also entitled for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties No. 1 & 3 contested the claim whereas opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte. Opposite party No. 1 & 3 filed written reply raising legal objections that; complaint is not maintainable; complainant has concealed material facts; complaint is based on false and frivolous averments; complaint is bad for non-joinder of the parties as the complainant has not impleaded manufacturer of the mobile hand set as party.<br /> On merits, the allegations of the complainant are not admitted as correct. They averred that the mobile hand set was sold to the complainant on certain terms and conditions as given in the booklet. The complaint of the complainant was attended to properly. The complainant never approached opposite party No. 1 or opposite party No. 3 after his old charger was replaced on 28-04-2008. The complainant continued to use his mobile hand set till 26-12-2008 when he filed the present complaint. As per verbal orders of this Forum dated 10-02-2009, the mobile hand set and charger of the complainant were checked in the Service Centre of opposite party No. 3 on 11-02-2009 by technical person and after opening the mobile hand set in the presence of the complainant and on checking, it was found that hand set was tampered with and damaged from inside and also contained some liquid material. The infrared receiver was also found missing and key dome foil was damaged from inside of the handset. All these facts are contrary to the terms and conditions of the warranty. The wires of the charger were also broken. While checking the mobile hand set of the complainant, photographs were also taken by the engineers of opposite party No. 3 on 11-02-2009. The opposite party No. 3 had also informed his Head Office at Chandigarh vide E-mail dated 11-02-2009. It is specifically denied by the opposite parties that complainant is entitled to recover any compensation from opposite parties No. 1 & 3.<br /> 3. Both the parties in order to prove their respective contentions have led respective evidence. <br /> 4. The complainant Sh. Priptal Singh has filed his affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of Job Sheet Ex. C-2, photocopy of bill dated 28-04-2007 Ex. C-3 and photographs Ex. C-4.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties produced on record affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Ashwani Garg, Service Engineer, photocopy of authority letter Ex. R-2, photocopy of Job Sheet Ex. R-3, photocopy of E. Mail Ex. R-4, photocopy of warranty alongwith conditions Ex. R-5 and photographs Ex. R-6 & Ex. R-7.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case.<br /> 7. The complainant in order to substantiate his allegations filed his affidavit Ex. C-1, Job Sheet Ex. C-2, bill vide which hand set was purchased Ex. C-3, and photographs of the mobile hand set Ex. C-4. It was argued on behalf of the complainant that since the mobile hand set was purchased on 28-04-2007 with a warranty by the company for a period of one year and hand set went defective beyond repairs within the period of warranty, the complainant took the defective set to opposite parties No. 2 & 3, they could not rectify the defect and therefore, complainant is entitled for replacement of the mobile hand set.<br /> 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 3 urged that Job Card Ex. C-2 reveals that the mobile hand set was checked and it was found without any defect as on 28-04-2008 whereas the mobile hand set was purchased by the complainant on 28-04-2007. He also urged that on 28-04-2008, the charger was found dead and therefore, old charger was replaced with a new one. The complainant thereafter did not report any defect in the mobile hand set to opposite parties No. 1 & 3 till the date he filed this complaint on 26-12-2008. He urged that the mobile hand set on the verbal instructions was examined/checked in the Service Centre of opposite party No. 3 on 11-02-2009 by the technical person and on checking/opening of the mobile hand set in the presence of the complainant, it was found to be tampered with and on checking from inside, it was found containing some liquid material, infrared receiver missing and key dome damaged from inside of the hand set. The learned counsel also referred affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Garg, Service Engineer Ex. R-1 and his experience certificate Ex. R-2 about his competency in the subject. The detailed report of the examination alongwith terms and conditions of the warranty are also referred to which are Ex. R-4 & Ex. R-5. He has also referred the internal photographs of the mobile hand set Ex. R-6 & Ex. R-7 which were taken on 11th February, 2009 at 11.15 A.M. <br /> 9. We have considered the rival contentions of both the sides after taking into consideration the evidence of the parties available on record.<br /> 10. It appears from the record that the complainant has taken his mobile hand set only once to opposite party No. 3 when Job Card Ex. C-2 was prepared and on checking the charger of the mobile hand set, it was found dead and accordingly, it was replaced with a new one. Thereafter the complainant remained silent and he did not approach opposite party No. 3 for removal of any defect or with any complaint in his mobile hand set as there is no written complaint or Job Card available on the record. The contention of opposite parties No. 1 & 3 that the complainant did not approach or visited them during the period from 28-04-2008 to 26-12-2008 appears to be quite genuine as if there would have been any complaint with the mobile hand set of the complainant, he would have definitely taken the same to opposite party No. 3 and would have got it repaired after getting prepared the Job Card or he would have sent a written complaint of the defective mobile hand set either to opposite party No. 1 or to opposite party No. 3. Moreover, examination report Ex. R-4 of the mobile hand set by a technical expert i.e. Ashwani Garg, Service Engineer reveals that the hand set was opened and it was found tampered with and containing some liquid material. An Infrared receiver was also found missing and key dome damaged from inside of the hand set. As to how this damage was caused remained unexplained by any evidence of the complainant as to whether the damage was caused due to any manufacturing defect or it developed due to some negligent handling of the mobile set. It remained a mystery unless the complainant is able to satisfy us that the damage was caused to his mobile hand set within the warranty period due to some manufacturing defect. This Forum will not be within its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the of the defect to order for the replacement of the mobile hand set or to order payment of any amount of compensation as has been claimed by the complainant.<br /> 11. Taking into consideration totality of the facts, circumstances and the evidence brought on record, we are constrained to conclude that there is no merit in the allegations of the complainant which called for action against the opposite parties. Accordingly, complaint fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 23-07-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul )<br /> Member