BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.93 of 2015

Date of Instt. 10.03.2015

Date of Decision :18.05.2015

Varun Aggarwal son of Jagdish Chander Aggarwal R/o ND-38, Vikrampura, Near Mai Hiraan Gate, Jalandhar City, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Service Point through its Principal Officer/Incharge/Prop. 233/1, Shaeed Udham Singh Nagar, Near Preet Hotel, Jalandhar, Punjab.

2. Sony Mobile Communication (India) Pvt Ltd, through its Principal Officer/Manager/Director, A-31, IInd Floor, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

3. Mobile House through its Principal Officer/Manager, Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar City.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Sanjeev Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant who is a businessman and the substantial part of business is dependent upon mobile phone calling. On 21.1.2015, in order to purchase a new mobile phone, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3, dealer of several mobile phone brands. The complainant showed his interest to purchase new mobile phone of good quality. The opposite party No.3 is also authorized dealer of opposite party No.2, manufacturer of Sony mobile phones, wherein the authorized representative/employees of opposite party No.2 were present. The representative of opposite party No.2 allured and induced the complainant to purchase a mobile phone model C6902 and assured and promised that the said model being manufactured by opposite party No.2 is having all features of smart android phone besides long battery time and life and water resistant technology. The representatives of opposite party No.2 present at the dealership point of opposite party No.3 also stated that good quality after sale service is available with opposite party No.1, authorized service point of Sony mobile products. At the assurances and promises of quality of Sony mobile phones by the representative of opposite party No.2 present at opposite party No.3, the complainant purchased Sony mobile phone model C6902 with IMEI code No.358094056468193 vide invoice No.59470/cash memo dated 22.1.2015 against the cash payment of Rs.24,900/-. The warranty of phone was given by opposite party No.2 for a period of 12 months from the date of original purchase. There was problem with the mobile phone as the phone recurrently shut off after heating up both in use mode as well as in standby/idle mode and in this regard, a complaint was registered with opposite party No.1 on 2.2.2015 and due to recurring problem, the phone was again deposited with opposite party No.1 on 5.2.2015. In this regard, the complainant contacted the officials of opposite party No.2 through their website/ e-mail on 16.2.2015. Thereafter a reply was received through e-mail from opposite party No.2 wherein to the surprise of complainant what was mentioned in reply was We would like to inform that Sony authorized service centre would decide to service the phone and swap it with a working unit of the same model depending upon. In this regard, there was a response from the Sony Experia customer services. On the same day i.e on 16.2.2015, complaint was lodged with opposite party No.2 vide e-mail. Thereafter on 19.2.2015, a SMS was received from opposite part No.1/2 mentioning that the phone was ready after repair and when the complainant met the workers present at the shop of opposite party No.2, the complainant found the same problem again. Right from the date of purchase, the phone was not working properly and apparently there was a manufacturing defect in the phone to which, the opposite party No.1 has failed to fix or rectify rather what has been now offered to the complainant by the opposite parties No.1,2 is that the parts of the brand new cell phone is to be replaced/swapped with the parts of old used phone in working condition which amounts to gross deficiency in service besides unfair trade practice since in warranty, the new parts should have been replaced/swapped with brand new one. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset alongwith Rs.1600/- spent on insurance or software. He has also claimed damages and litigation expenses and in the alternative he has also prayed for replacement of the phone with brand new one with fresh warranty.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

5. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question on 22.1.2015 from opposite party No.3 vide retail invoice Ex.C1 for Rs.24,900/-. According to the complainant, soon after purchase it developed defects and he deposited the mobile phone with service centre i.e opposite party No.1 but it failed to rectify the defect. The complainant has placed on record email Ex.C6 sent by Sony company wherein it is mentioned as under:-

Also, we would like to inform you that regarding your demand for replacement we would like to inform that Sony authorized service centre would decide to service the phone or swap it with a working unit of the same model depending on the nature of concern in the phone and the level of servicing required. Hence, we are currently not in a position to comment on your request for replacement so we request you to kindly visit service centre.

6. Ex.C7 is job sheet issued by opposite party No.1 i.e service centre of the company. From the above email Ex.C6 it is evident that the company or authorized service centre wants to swap the handset of the complainant with working unit of the same model. So, it means that the mobile handset was having some inherent defects and was beyond repair. The opposite parties have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant or to rebut his allegations. So, from the unrebutted evidence adduced by the complainant, his version stand proved.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against opposite parties No.1 and 2 and they are directed either to give new box packed mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant with fresh warranty or to refund its price i.e Rs.24,900/-to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

18.05.2015 Member Member President