Haryana

Karnal

75/14

Jasmer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shivam Comunication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mudit Arora

05 Sep 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.075 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt. 20.03.2014

                                                               Date of decision: 27.08.2015

 

Jasmer Singh son of Anant Ram r/o village Amin District Kurukshetra.

                                                           ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

1.Shivam Comm. Old Charachaman, Link Road, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

2.M/s Raj Mahal Service Centre, SCO No.6, Link Road, Mugal Canal near Dr.Gian Bhushan Hospital, Karnal.

 

3.Sony Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, 2^nd Floor Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

 

                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma ………Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…… Member.  

         

 Present:         Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Sanjay Singla Advocate for Ops No.2 and 3.

                    OP No.1  already ex parte.

ORDER:

 

                        The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1086 are that  complainant purchased Sony Mobile  C 2009 from Opposite Party ( in short OP) no.1 , the authorized dealer of OP no.2 for a sum of Rs.14,500/- vide bill  dated 28.12.2013. One year warranty was provided for the said mobile. However, the mobile started giving troubles from the very first day . It was having problem of auto power switch, heat, hanging, net work and touch. In February, 2014, he approached the OP no.1 who asked him to visit authorized service centre  i.e. OP no.2. However, the OP No.2 asked him to pay Rs.7000/- for removing the said defects and refused to repair the same free of costs.  Thereafter, he lodged complaint with the customer care of OP no.3, but no solution was provided. He also contacted the officials of  OP Nos.2 and 3 and narrated about the defects in the mobile and deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to repair the defects. There was manufacturing defect in the mobile set and deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, which caused him mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.  The complainant requested for refund the price of the mobile set  alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, Rs.50000/- as compensation for the mental pain and harassment caused to him and Rs.5500/- towards litigation expenses.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, but none put to  in appearance on behalf of OP no.1 and ex parte proceedings were initiated against it vide order dated 7.5.2012.  OPs no.2 and 3 filed their joint written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been admitted that complainant had purchased one mobile set  C 2009 from OP no.1. It has been   submitted that no complaint was received by the OPs regarding the mobile hand set form the complainant and they came to know about the dispute after receiving notice from this Forum. They made several failed attempts to contact the complainant in order to request him to deposit the hand set with OP no.2 for the purpose of inspection,  in order to decide further course of action. The complainant has filed the present complaint with an intention to harass the Ops and get wrongful monetary gains from them. The complaint is vexatious, baseless and abuse of the process of law.  The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the mobile set or any compensation whatsoever.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure  C1 and Annexure C2.

 

4.                In evidence of Ops affidavit of Prinyka Chauhan Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/3 have been filed.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                The  parties are not at dispute regarding purchase of one mobile hand set of Sony Model C 2009 from OP no.1 on 28.12.2012.   As per allegations of the complainant, the said mobile started giving problem from the very first day. It was having problem of auto power switch, heat, hanging, net work and touch. He approached the Ops for repair of the mobile but they did not repair , rather the OP no.2 demanded Rs.7000/- for repair even during the warranty period.

 

7.                On the other hand, the Ops no.2 and 3 have submitted that the complainant never contacted them or their service centre for repair of the mobile hand set. The documents Annexure C1 and Annexure C2 indicate that complainant approached the service Centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. on 7.11.2014 for repair of the mobile set. At that time the unit was dead and the service centre prepared the estimate of Rs.5193/-, but the complainant did not pay that amount and got back the mobile hand set. These document lend  support to the affidavit of the complainant, wherein the allegations made in the complaint have been reiterated. This evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.  Thus, it is established that complainant had approached the service  centre of the Ops for repair of the mobile set during the warranty period and as such the plea of the Ops that complainant never approached them for repair of the mobile set, stands falsified. In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

8.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to refund the price of the mobile set  i.e. Rs.14,500/- to the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order jointly and severally within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:27.08.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

  (Anil Sharma) (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

   Member               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                     Jasmer Singh Vs.Shivam Communications etc.

Present:          Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Sanjay Singla Advocate for Ops No.2 and 3.

                     OP No.1  already ex parte.

 

                   Arguments heard.  Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

 

Announced
dated:27.08.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

  (Anil Sharma) (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

   Member               Member.