Complainant Gurpreet Singh vide the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short the Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile phone with new one. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that on 16.7.2013 he purchased one mobile phone of Sony Model ST 26 I MO Xperia J having its IMEI No.356179055567715 for Rs.15,000/- from opposite party no.1. The said Mobile is being manufactured by the opposite party No.3. At the time of purchase of the said mobile, the opposite party no.1 allured that there is warranty of 1 year from the date of purchase i.e. uptil 16.7.2014 and in case there is any problem occurs in the mobile in question, then they will got the said defect remove from the mobile in question from the Service Center of the Sony Company within one year and in case the problem is of manufacturing defect level, then they will replace the same within the warranty period.  He has further pleaded that mobile was not functioning after two months. Its battery was shown to be 25 or 30%. There were also other defects and he was unable to hear the proper voice of the caller as there is a problem in the speaker and even the mobile of Touch Screen, but its Touch was also not properly function. Multiple defects were in the mobile set, but the opposite party failed to remove these defects despite repeated requests. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 & 3. Hence this complaint.

 3.     Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and the claim of the complainant is infructuous and time barred and same is not within warranty period. On merits, it was submitted that the said mobile was returned back to the petitioner on the same date after repair and removal of the mobile by updating software as per job sheets dated 27.12.2013. And after that said complainant never approached personally nor in writing neither handed over the mobile set for repair, whole story as put up in the complaint/petitions is false, frivolous, fabricated and concocted one which he brought before this Forum after expiry of stipulated warranty period as such the complaint is not maintainable being infructuous one. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with special costs.

4.        Opposite party no.3 appeared and filed its written reply stating therein that after receiving the handset on 27.12.2013 the complainant never raised any issue or claim of whatsoever nature with regard to the malfunctioning of the subject mobile phone however, despite best efforts, the complainant filed the complaint to harass the opposite party. Further it was stated that the natural failure may happen in the product in the course of time and this is the reason why the opposite parties offer one year warranty moreover, in the present consumer complaint the neither repair nor assistance were ever denied by the opposite parties thus, there exist no question of alleging deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

5.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CI, along with the other document exhibited as Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.        6.      On the other hand, Sh.Raj Kumar, Prop. Speed Telecom of opposite party No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-1,2/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/4 and closed the evidence.

7.      Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence photocopies of documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP-3/3 and closed the evidence.

8.       We have carefully considered the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the documentary and other evidence as produced on record during the proceedings of the complaint with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.       Counsel for the opposite party no.3 stated at bar that opposite party no.3 is ready and willing to affect the repairs if any, at their own costs. We accordingly dispose of the present complaint and direct the complainant to approach the opposite party no.2 within a period of 15 days from the receipt of copy of orders for repairs and the opposite parties no.2 & 3 being the service centre and manufacturers will be jointly and severely responsible for affecting repairs at their own cost and delivering the handset to the complainant in perfectly working condition within seven days from the receipt of defective handset. Disposed off accordingly.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                    

      (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President   

Announced:                                                (Jagdeep Kaur)

March 27, 2015                                                   Member

*MK*