BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.50 of 2015
Date of Institution: 10.3.2015
Date of Decision: 09.01.2017
Ashwani Kumar Sachdeva, aged about 50 years son of Shri Ramji Dass, C/o Office, Indian Overseas Bank, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Shree Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its proprietor.
2. Sony Care Centre, Chugh Telecom. Shop no.81-82-83, New M.C. Market, Sirsa, through its proprietor/ partner.
3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, Mohan co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-44.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he had purchased one mobile of Sony company having IMEI No.35809854683406 for a sum of Rs.13,500/- from opposite party no.1 on 14.3.2014 vide cash memo No.62620 dated 14.3.2014 with warranty of one year. After two months of the purchase of mobile, it started giving problems in the screen and other functions were also not working properly. The complainant approached and requested ops no.1 & 2 at least six times for removal of defects but they did not care for the same. He also got served a legal notice dated 3.1.2015 upon ops but to no effect. Thereafter also, he approached and requested the ops for replacement of the defective mobile set but they have totally refused to do so about a week back. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement wherein it has been submitted that answering op is mere retail seller of the mobile set manufactured by company and sells the mobile in same condition as received from the company. After purchase of mobile set, the complainant never approached the answering op nor he has any such right because the care centre of company is available at Sirsa.
3. Ops No.2 & 3 replied that on 9.9.2014, complainant reported issue of touch not working and software update was done on 10.9.2014 free of costs, then on 17.9.2014 he reported issue of touch not working upon which touch panel was replaced free of costs on 23.9.2014, then he reported issue of restarting on 1.12.2014 upon which SIM board was replaced and software update was done free of costs. On 6.1.2015 he reported issue of Bluetooth not working upon which PCB was replace don 12.1.2015. The complainant brought the product to op no.2 with complaints with respect to display and other functions and op no.2 attended to the said complaints promptly and replaced parts free of cost and ops have borne the cost of the replaced parts and honoured the terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant has failed to handle the handset diligently and to follow the instructions as per the user manual. In reply to legal notice, the complainant has been given a offer of a replacement with a fresh refurbished handset functionally equivalent or paid upgrade but complainant has refused to accept the same. The warranty specifies that the repair/ replacement/ refund shall only be at the sole discretion of SONY.
4. By way of evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of job sheet dated 6.1.2015 Ex.C3 and job sheet dated 12.1.2015 Ex.C4, legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C8, acknowledgments Ex.C9 and Ex.C10. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and copy of warranty card Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 14.3.2014 as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C2. From the job card dated 6.1.2015 Ex.C3 it is evident that issues were related to WiFi/ internet and data option auto on and from job card dated 12.1.2015 Ex.C4 it is evident that issues were related to WiFi/ internet etc. In the job card dated 12.1.2015 Ex.C4, it is mentioned that PCB change, S/W done and set is ok. Further more, it is own admission of the ops that on 9.9.2014 complainant reported issue of touch not working and at that time software update was done, however, the complainant again faced the problem of touch on 17.9.2014 and at that time touch panel was replaced. On 7.12.2014 sim board of the mobile was replaced and software update was done. So, from the above admission and from the job sheets it is evident that complainant has visited the opposite parties time and again for removal of defects but defects occurs in the mobile in few days. After job done on 12.1.2015, the complainant is still not satisfied with the working of mobile in question and has filed the present complaint and ops in their reply have submitted that they have given offer of replacement to the complainant. In our view also, the complainant is also entitled to replacement of the mobile in question with a new one of same price and description.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same price and description within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This order should be complied by all the opposite parties jointly and severally. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:09.01.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
