DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/14/344 of 15/12/2014
Decided on 21/05/2015
Abhinav Garg S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Garg, R/o Modi Mill Colony, Nabha, Distt. Patiala.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Sankalap Electronics, SCF No.9, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Opp. Iqbal Inn Hotel, Patiala through its Proprietor.
2. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the
Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member
Present:
For Complainant : Sh. Gaurav Bansal Advocate
For Opposite parties : Sh. Dhiraj Puri Advocate
ORDER
NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:
1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone handset C6602/Experia Z/Black ( SM Handset) -8.58 having IMEI No.35566 057290529 from Mahavir electronics vide Invoice no.1015 dt.23/12/2013 for an amount of Rs.30700/-. It is averred that during the warranty period i.e. on 19/09/2014 some problem cropped up in the said mobile phone and the complainant approached OP no.1, the authorized service centre of the company who told the complainant to deposit the said mobile phone with OP no.1 and told him to come on 22/09/2014. On 22/09/2014, OP handed over the mobile phone to the complainant after rectifying the defect. After a few days, the same problem again cropped up and the complainant approached OP no.1 and deposited the mobile phone with it who told the complainant to come after a few days. On 09/10/2014, OP no.1 called the complainant and tried to hand over the mobile phone of white colour which the complainant refused to accept because the complainant had purchased the mobile phone of Black colour which was Rs.1000/- costlier than the white mobile phone at the time of purchase. On 11/10/2014, the complainant again approached OP no.1, who handed over another swapped set with another IMEI no. Again same problem developed in the mobile phone and the complainant sent various Emails to Op no.1. But Op failed to pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Again on 13/11/2014, the complainant approached Op no.1, who kept the mobile phone of the complainant with it and handed over a service mobile phone of model no.C 5502 to the complainant and requested him to come after a few days.
2. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of OP. On 20/11/2014, he got served a legal notice upon OPs but to no use. Ultimately he approached this forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).
3. On notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their joint reply to the complaint. After admitting that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone from OP no.1 on 23/12/2014, it is averred that after enjoying the said mobile phone for almost 10 months, the complainant, for the first time, approached the Service Centre i.e. OP no.1 on 02/10/2014 claiming and raising the issue of “ear speaker/ audio jack cap loose problem.” After inspecting the mobile phone OP no.1 swapped the handset in question and returned it to the complainant on 11/10/2014 in perfect working condition. After receiving the mobile phone on 11/10/2014 the complainant again approached OP no.1 on 13/10/2014, with the issue of “echo & ear speaker problem,”. However, the handset was again swapped and returned to the complainant on 20/10/2014. It is further averred that the complainant visited OP no.1 for the last time on 13/11/2014, alleging that the “ear speaker works when back side is pressed” for which the handset in question was again swapped. However, the complainant intentionally never turned back to collect the same despite being informed for a number of times. On 20/11/2014, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs. During the pendency of the present complaint Op no.2 vide its letter dt. 29/1/2015 informed the complainant that the swapped handset is ready for collection and further brought to the notice of the complainant that the mere intention for offering swapped handset is to provide faster solution to the complainant. It was further submitted that the OPs, as a goodwill gesture towards the customers, also offered the below mentioned options to the complainant:-
Option 1 : Exchange of your product with same or similar value model.
Or
Option II : Exchange of your product with any current line up Sony Xperia model by paying MRP to MRP difference. The new product comes with normal full one year warranty. The payment will be made through cheque/ DD and new set can be delivered to you on realization of the cheque. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. will retain the defective set as part of the exchange offer.
Or
Option III : Refund of product purchase value.
4. Further it is averred that such an offer was made only in order to maintain customer satisfaction and does not amount to an admission of any liability on their part. It is further submitted that the present complaint being false & vexatious was liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of the C P Act 1986.
5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand counsel for OPs, tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Priyank Chauhan, authorized signatory of OPs along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
6. Parties failed to file written arguments. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
7. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant suffered the statement that Op no.2 vide its written version has given three options to the complainant and that the complainant opts for the 3rd option i.e. the refund of product purchase value which, as per invoice Ex.C-1 was Rs.30,700/-. The ld. counsel for the OP also got his statement recorded that product purchase value of the mobile in question, as per invoice Ex.C-1 is Rs.30,700/-. The offer given by the OP having been accepted by the complainant, now we are not to discuss the points involved in the complaint and rather it would appear that parties have settled the dispute amicably. Consequentally, we accept the complaint and direct OP no.2 to refund the product purchase value of Rs.30,700/- to the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order and the complainant shall hand over the standby mobile hand set no.C 5502 handed over to the complainant vide job sheet Ex.C-3 dt. 02/10/2014 by OP no.1, a fact not disputed by the ld. counsel for the complainant, before accepting the payment.
8. It was however, submitted by Sh. Gaurav Bansal ld. counsel for the complainant that the said offer was made by OP no.2 vide its letter Ex.C-12 dt. 29/01/2015 much after the filing of the complaint. Had the said offer been made earlier by the OP in response to the legal notice Ex.C-9 dt.20/11/2014, the complainant would not have suffered from the pangs of the uncalled for litigation and for that complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony and therefore, he may be got compensated suitably from the OP. We have considered the submissions in this regard and are of the considered view that there occurred a deficiency of service on the part of the Op in taking the decision after the delay of about two months and 9 days so as to make three offers to the complainant vide their letter Ex.C-12 dt. 29/01/2015 and therefore, the complainant has got to be suitably compensated on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him qua the litigation thrusted upon him. Accordingly the complaint is accepted with cost of Rs.5000/- which is inclusive of the cost of the amount of compensation and the same shall be paid by the OP within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced
Dated: 21/05/2015.
Sonia Bansal D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta
Member President Member
