BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.423 of 2015

Date of Instt. 30.09.2015

Date of Decision :17.05.2016

Sanjeev Shridhar son of Ravinder Parkash Sharma R/o 808 New Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Smart Imaging Solutions, 317-R, Model Town, Jalandhar.

2. Rai & Sons, SCO-60, Sector-47C, Chandigarh-160047.

3. Sony India Pvt Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.KS Rishi Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Robin Budhiraja Adv., counsel for OPs.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased Sony Xperia-Z2 mobile from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.38,400/- vide invoice dated 6.12.2014 with warranty of one year. Complainant submitted that the said mobile became defective and he approached OP No.2 authorized service centre for repair of the mobile set on 18.7.2015 with job sheet No.W115071802918 with complaint concerning ringer auto mute and over heating while using camera and video and voice not clear. Complainant submitted that thereafter complainant visited so many times to the authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 but OP No.2 did not repair the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant made email communication with OPs No.2 & 3 but the OPs No.2 & 3 neither returned the mobile set to the complainant after repair nor replaced the same with new one. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of the mobile set. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that complainant purchased mobile set Sony Xperia Z-2 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 6.12.2014 and he enjoyed the handset for more than seven months and approached OP No.2 for the first time on 18.7.2015 raising an issue with ear speaker/over heating of the aforesaid handset. Without any delay, the OP No.2 immediately attended the complaint and inspected the handset. OP found that the handset was working properly and there was no such problem with the handset as pointed out by the complainant. No issue was observed by the OP in relation to the subjected handset. The complainant was informed to collect the handset from the OP No.2 vide email on 27.7.2015 produced and proved by the complainant himself and the complainant on the same day i.e. 27.7.2015 replied to the OP that complainant is not interested to use the repaired mobile set and is thinking for a legal action and he did not come forwarded to collect the handset and in order to harass the OP filed present complaint. OP No.3 specifically communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 16.12.2015 that on inspection of product by their service engineer, there was no such issue of ear speaker problem observed and the product was working as per designed specification and authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 has already communicated to the complainant to collect the handset and the OP No.3 again vide letter dated 16.12.2015, again requested the complainant to collect the mobile set from their authorized service centre OP No.2 at the earliest and they are ever ready to address any genuine complaint of the complainant but inspite of that the complainant did not collect the mobile set from OP No.2. OPs denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/3 and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Sony Xperia-Z-2 mobile from OP No.1 for sum of Rs.38,400/- vide invoice dated 6.12.2014 Ex.C1 with warranty of one year. Complainant submitted that the said mobile became defective and he approached OP No.2 authorized service centre for repair of the mobile set on 18.7.2015 with job sheet Ex.C2 with complaint concerning ringer auto mute and over heating while using camera and video and voice not clear. Complainant submitted that thereafter complainant visited so many times to the authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 but OP No.2 did not repair the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant made email communication with OPs No.2 & 3 which depicted in Ex.C3 but the OPs No.2 & 3 neither returned the mobile set to the complainant after repair nor replaced the same with new one. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OPs is that complainant purchased mobile set in question from OP No.1 on 6.12.2014 vide invoice Ex.C1 dated 6.12.2014 and he enjoyed the handset for more than seven months and approached OP No.2 for the first time on 18.7.2015, raising an issue with ear speaker/over heating of the aforesaid handset. Without any delay, the OP No.2 immediately attended the complaint and inspected the handset. OP found that the handset was working properly and there was no such problem with the handset as pointed out by the complainant. No issue was observed by the OP in relation to the subjected handset. The complainant was informed to collect the handset from the OP No.2 vide email on 27.7.2015 Ex.C3 produced and proved by the complainant himself and the complainant on the same day i.e. 27.7.2015 replied to the OP that complainant is not interested to use the repaired mobile set and is thinking for a legal action as is evident from email correspondence between the parties Ex.C3 page 5 and he did not come forwarded to collect the handset and in order to harass the OP filed present complaint. OP No.3 specifically communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 16.12.2015 Ex.OP3 that on inspection of product by their service engineer, there was no such issue of ear speaker problem observed and the product was working as per designed specification and authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 has already communicated to the complainant to collect the handset and the OP No.3 again vide letter dated 16.12.2015 Ex.OP3 again requested the complainant to collect the mobile set from their authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 at the earliest and they are ever ready to address any genuine complaint of the complainant but inspite of that the complainant did not collect the mobile set from OP No.2. The learned counsel for the OPs submitted that under these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Sony Xperia-Z2 mobile from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.38,400/- vide invoice dated 6.12.2014 Ex.C1. Complainant submitted that the said mobile became defective and he handed over the same to the OP No.2 authorized service centre of OP No.3 for repair vide job sheet dated 18.7.2015 Ex.C2. The complainant submitted that OP No.2 neither repaired the mobile set nor returned the same to the complainant nor replaced the same with new one despite complaints and repeated requests made by the complainant to OPs No.2 & 3 through email communication Ex.C3 running into 8 pages. Whereas OP No.2 succeeded in proving that complainant enjoyed this mobile set for more than seven months i.e. from 6.12.2014 to 18.7.2015 and he for the first time approached OP No.2 on 18.7.2015 with some defect in the mobile set regarding ear speaker, overheating, etc. OP No.2 attended the complaint and inspected the handset in question. OP No.3 vide email communication dated 27.7.2015 informed the complainant that as per their record, the handset of the complainant is ready and fully functional and they requested the complainant to contact their service centre i.e. OP No.2 to collect the handset. But the complainant instead of taking the mobile set, vide email dated 27.7.2015 Ex.C3 page 5 replied to OP No.3 that he is not interested to use the repaired mobile and he is thinking for legal action against the OPs. This email Ex.C3 has been presented by the complainant himself in the evidence, but in the complaint the complainant has concealed all these facts that OP No.3 informed the complainant that his handset is fully functional and is ready; and requested the complainant to take the mobile set but complainant refused to collect the repaired mobile handset from OP No.2. Rather, he threatened the OP through this email Ex.C3 page 5 dated 27.7.2015 to OP No.3 that he is not interested to use the repaired mobile and further threatened OP No.3 that he is thinking for legal action. Not only this, OP No.3 also wrote letter dated 16.12.2015 Ex.OP3 to the complainant that their service engineer after inspection of the product found no such issue in the mobile set and the product was working as per designed specification and they also requested the complainant to collect the mobile set from the authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 at the earlierest of his convenience but inspite of that complainant did not collect the mobile set. All these facts have been concealed by the complainant in his complaint as well as in his evidence i.e. affidavit Ex.CA nor the complainant could produce any evidence that mobile set of the complainant has any manufacturing or inherent defect which is not repairable. OPs No.2 & 3 were only liable to repair the mobile set and make it fully functional during the warranty period and they have repaired and made the mobile set of the complainant fully functional and requested the complainant time and again to collect his mobile set from authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 but the complainant did not collect the mobile set from OP No.2 rather threatened the OP for legal action. All this shows that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Complainant is at liberty to collect his mobile set to OP No.2.

11. Consequently, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant, the complaint is without merit and same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

17.05.2016 Member President