Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/184

Ashok kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Services point - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

       CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                           GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 05.03.2016

Complaint Case. No.184/16                                                   Date of order:    10.08.2018

IN  MATTER OF

Ashok Kumar, WZ 996-C, Sadh Nagar-II, Street # 35, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Complainant

VERSUS

Service Point, Office no. 308, 3^rd floor, DDA Building, 5, District Centre, Janak Puri, Delhi-110058

                                                                                                                Opposite party no.1

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (North), A-31, mohan Cooperative industrial estate, Mathura raod, NEW DELHI-44                                           

                                                                                                                 Opposite party no.2                                                                                                                           

                                    ORDER

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

                        Briefly the case of above named complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset Sony Xperia Z5 dual model E6683 in name of his son Shri Shahikant Vasta on 12.02.2016 from Asha Tele World Palam Colony for sale consideration of Rs. 42,750/- vide invoice no. 42163. The phone started giving problem from the very next day the mic of the phone was not working properly there was issues in both the cameras and battery is also discharging after 7-8 hours of using internet and also the handset was overheating and same was deposited with the authorized  service  center of the op on 18.02.2016 vide job sheet no.W116021801613. the Op called telephonically to collect the handset and complainant’s son when to collect the handset the default still persisted and this was brought to the notice of OP but they refused to acknowledge the same and told the complainant that the handset is without any default. Hence the complainant’s son refuse to accept the mobile handset and requested to replace the handset or refund the amount But Op refused. There is manufacturing in the handset as it started giving problem from inception. Hence the present complaint for directions to OP to replace the handset with the new one are refund the invoice amount of Handset and also pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.   

                        Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs but none put in appearance on behalf of OPs-1 and 2. Therefore, OPs-1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parte which was set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission. The Op filed reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that complainant after satisfaction purchase the product and op-2 only provides limited warranty for one year and clause 3 of the warranty clearly states that warranty does not cover defect in the product due to normal wear and tear misuse or any modification or adjustment or damage due to liquid. The op immediately redressed the grievance of the complainant and inspected the handset which was working normally as per specification and same was informed to the complainant.  But the complainant refused to collect the handset alleging that there is a manufacturing defect in the handset. Despite repeated reminders the complainant refused to collect the handset. The op time and again informed the complainant that the handset is working properly as per its specification and handset is free from any default. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part o f the OP hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  They averred that no cause of action ever arose against them and there is no deficiency in service on their part. On merits they denied the allegation made by the complainant and asserted that the handset was working without any default but the complainant refused to collect the same.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP denying the allegations and reiterating his facts of complaint. He  further asserted  that the price of  mobile handset  of same model  has gone down to half. Moreover he has purchase a new mobile handset for his son. 

The complainant filed affidavit of evidence testifying the facts of the complaint. He relied on invoice no. 42163 dated 12.02.2016 and job sheet NO.W116021801613 dated 18.02.2016.

The OP after filing reply failed to appear before the forum and failed to file affidavit of evidence and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.11.2018. The affidavit of the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant which is on oath.

The main controversy is that the mobile handset  has developed faults and was given for repairs within warranty period on 18.02.2016 after six days. The complainant submits that the handset was not repaired up to the satisfaction of the complainant and the problems in the handset still persisted. But the same was not acknowledge by the Op. The op insisted that the Phone is without any default and persuaded the complainant to take it back.

From perusal of the job sheet it reveals that the handset was given for repairs within warranty it shows that the conditions of handset is good. The job sheet further reveals that ASC comments are mic problem some time, battery back up 8 to 9 hours and back camera not clear in night mode. It shows that the test mode Check-failed.

We have heard the complaint in person and gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. During course of arguments we confronted the complainant for not receiving the mobile handset as it has already been repaired. He alleged that the mobile handset has still certain issues which are not rectified by the OP. He has spent huge amount only for having features specified in the handset and if same are not provided then op has failed to provide the services.

 The contentions of OP alleging that the handset is working as per specification and have no default in the same is not supported by any cogent evidence. Though they have filed status of battery but no specified report of mic and camera are filed. The mobile handset developed issues regarding mic which is the most essentials part of the handset and in our view if the problem was rectified by the OP then there would have been no reason for the complainant to refuse to take back the mobile handset. The Op chose not to appear despite the knowledge of proceeding. The version of the OP is not testify on oath hence has no sanctity of the same.    Therefore, the OP is liable to replace the handset with a new handset.

In light of above discussion and observation we direct Op to replace the handset with new handset and pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

Order pronounced on :-

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                              (K.S. MOHI)                       MEMBER                                                                                                        PRESIDENT