DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.207 of 2015

                                       DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 17-07.2015

                                                               DATE OF ORDER: 18-11-2016

Sheetal Rani D/o Shri Multan Singh wife of Shri Dinesh Singh, resident care of Tarun Sharma son of Shri Krishan Kumar, VPO Manehru, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

              ……………Complainant.

VERSUS                     

1. The Sony Care Center, City Mall, Bhiwani through its Manager.

1. The Sony Care Center, SAI Security Systems, Near Malabar Guest House, Orean Road, Rohtak, Haryana, through its Manager.

1. Jai Durga Mobile & Electronics, Bus Stand, Kanina, District Mahendergarh.

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

                     Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

                     Mrs. Sudesh, Member

Present:-     Sh. Amit Bansal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Balbir Mehta, Advocate for Ops.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                        In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 18.05.2014 she had purchased a Sony Xperia handset from OP no. 3 against bill no. 2007 amounting to Rs. 12,700/-.  It is alleged that after some days, the said handset of the complainant countered with some problem about power and transceiver problem.  It is alleged that she went to the OP no. 3, who advised him to go to OP no. 1 and OP no. 1 kept the said handset for repairing & assured the complainant that the problem would be resolved.  It is alleged that after a week, the problem arose again and she again visited to OP no. 1 but he did not give any satisfied reply.  It is alleged that the complainant approached to the OP no. 2 and OP no. 2 checked the handset on dated 14.05.2015 and asked it had manufactured defect and it should be replaced according to company rule.  It is alleged that she served a legal notice to Ops but did not pay any attention.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops she has to suffer mental agony, harassment and legal expenses.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, she has to file the present complaint & prayed for replace the handset  and for compensation.

2.                     Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant never approached the  authorized service centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd with any defects whatsoever with respect to the handset.  It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever.  It is submitted that the complainant is trying to misguide this Forum by making false and baseless allegations.  It is submitted that if the complainant is having any sort of issues in the working of the handset then the complainant should visit the authorized service centre for resolution of the issue faced.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                     In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1  to Annexure C-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                     On the other hand, the counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence document Mark A.

5.                     We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6.                     Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant became faulty and the complainant visited the OP no. 2 for repairing the same but the OP no. 2 did not repair the handset of the complainant and returned the same to the complainant without repair.

7.                     Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, the Ops are not liable to repair or replace the mobile handset of the complainant, because the complainant got repaired his handset from the unauthorized person in the local market and its part have also been replaced.

8.                     In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on the record.  The counsel for the complainant contended that a legal notice dated 27.05.2015 was also got served on the Ops through her counsel but the Ops did not respond the same.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to repair the handset of the complainant, by replacing the defective parts if any, and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the complainant.  The complainant is directed to take her mobile handset to the service centre of the company for repair and the Ops are directed to repair the handset of the complainant within 30 days from the date of deposit of mobile handset by the complainant.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:.18-11-2016.                            

                                                                                                  (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                                       President,            

                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                         Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                        (Anamika Gupta)            (Sudesh)

                            Member                      Member