Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/62/2015

Tajinder Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Soni India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Lovkesh Sharma

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 62 of 2015

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 19.02.2015

                                                                                    Date of Decision:10.08.2016.

Tajinder Kumar aged about 28 years son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, resident of village Mamidi, Post Office Aurangabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Soni India Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office:-A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director/Incharge.
2. Ambay Electronic Service, DS-14, First Floor, Jail Land, Sector-01, HUDA Market, Ambala, Haryana 134003 through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. M/s Arun Electronic, Pyara Chowk, Opp. Shivaji Market, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor.

                                                                                                                                 …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Lovekesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              Respondents No.2 & 3 already ex-parte vide order dated 6.04.2015.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Tajinder Kumar filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the mobile set to the complainant with new one immediately and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.    

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile phone make Sony Experia E3 DS bearing IMEI No. 355289064106487 for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- vide Bill No. 25314 dated 17.12.2014 (Annexure C-1) carrying warranty of one year from the Op No.3 manufactured by Op No.1 whose service centre is OP No.2. After some time, the mobile phone started malfunctioning as there was severe hanging problem in the said mobile and the said mobile used to disconnect during talk and did not work again even after hours. The complainant approached the OP No.3 and made a complaint regarding non functioning of the said mobile set. Upon which, Op No.3 asked the complainant to take the mobile to OP No.2. Upon this, the complainant took the mobile to OP No.2 who asked the complainant to leave the said mobile with him and that he would remove the defect from the said mobile. He also issued a service job sheet dated 01.01.2015 and returned the said mobile after 10 days but after return the said mobile did not work properly and the problem remained the same. Thereafter on 27.01.2015, the complainant had again taken the said mobile to OP No.2 and OP No.2 again retained the said mobile for 3 days and returned the same on 30.01.2015 and assured that this time the said mobile work will properly but of no use, the defect in the said mobile was not removed by the OP No.2. Thereafter on 05.02.2015, the complainant again took the said mobile to OP No.2 and Op No.2 kept the said mobile vide service job sheet dated 05.02.2015 but till date the defect in the said mobile had not been removed by the OPs. In fact, the said mobile was having a manufacturing defect and the said defect is not removable from the said mobile. The complainant approached the OPs a number of times and requested to replace the mobile set but they always put off the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to replace the mobile set with new one. As such, the OPs have rendered deficient and negligent service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OPs No.2 & 3 failed to appear despite service, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.04.2015.

4.                     OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections and on merit  it has been stated that as per the records of the company, the complainant herein had purchased a Sony Xperia E3 DS (hereinafter referred to as Handset/Mobile) bearing model No. D2212 on 17.12.2014. It has been admitted that the Op No.1 provides a warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. From the terms of warranty it is clear that the OPs are liable to provide free of cost repair on its products in cases when the product is proved to be defective due to improper material, workmanship, any manufacturing defect or any other problem that has arisen in the product from the manufacturers side and not when the defect has arisen due to an external cause which is beyond the control of OPs. The complainant herein, approached the OP No.2 on 01.01.2015 with the issue of “Hanging Problem, Disconnect during talk and did not work again even after hours”. However, upon its thorough inspection by the service engineer of the OP No.1 it was found that the handset is physically damaged which was thoroughly demonstrated to the complainant by the Service Engineer of the OP No.1. Subsequently, on 27.01.2015, the complainant again approached the OP No.2 with the same issue on which the service engineer again told the complainant that the handset is having external damage hence cannot be covered under warranty. Still the OP No.2 serviced the handset free of cost. Again on 05.02.2015 the complainant took the handset to OP No.2 with the same issue on which the service engineer gave price break up for repair cost, the complainant with an assurance to return back, left the handset with OpNo.2 but till date has not returned with any answer.  The OPs asked to take the phone back on which complainant instead of taking the handset back filed the captioned false case with the malafide intention to wrongfully gain from the OPs. It has been further submitted that as a goodwill gesture towards its customers the OPs just to avoid any dispute with the complainant offers were made by the OPs, however, the said offer was refused by the complainant as the complainant wanted to get the handset replaced with a new handset which is contrary to the terms and conditions of warranty and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Bill No. 25314 dated 17.12.2014 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job sheet dated 05.02.2015 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of job sheet dated 27.01.2015  as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of job sheet dated 01.01.2015 as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.    

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavits of Priyank Chauhan as Annexure RW/A & RW/B and documents such as Photo copy of resolution dated 07.02.2014 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of terms and conditions as Annexure R-2, and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile set of Rs. 12,000/- vide Bill No.25314 dated 17.12.2014 (Annexure C-1) from OP No.3. The version of the complainant is that he contacted to OP No.2 several times to get the repair of his defective mobile set and the same could not be repaired properly by the Ops but some problems remained as it is and lastly the OPs totally refused to accede the genuine request to repair the mobile set in question of the complainant. We have perused the job sheet dated 05.02.2015 (Annexure C-2), job sheet dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure C-3) and Job Sheet dated 01.01.2015 (Annexure C-4)  from which it is clearly evident that the mobile set in question was having problems in respect of Hanging as well as other problems since very beginning i.e. 01.01.2015 which is evident from Annexure C-4 i.e. just after 13 days from its purchase on 17.12.2014. Further the OPs has also admitted this fact in their written statement in para No.5 that the complainant approached the service centre of Op No.2 on 01.01.2015 with the complaint of Hanging problem, Disconnect during talk and did not work again even after hours. Further it has also been admitted in the same para  No.6 that again complainant visited the service centre on 27.01.2015 with the same problem and the mobile set in question was serviced with free of costs. It has also been admitted in para No.10 that as a goodwill gesture towards its customers the Ops, just to avoid any dispute with the complainant offers were made by the OPs, however, the said offer was refused by the complainant as the complainant wanted to get the handset replaced with a new handset.

9.                     Although the complainant has not filed any expert report to prove that mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect but from the perusal of the job sheets as well as admission on the part of the OPs, it is clearly evident that complainant might have suffered mental agony and harassment which constitute the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Furthermore, no cogent evidence or affidavit on behalf of any service engineer of the Service Centre has been placed on file to prove that mobile set was having any physical damages. Even as per version of the complainant, the mobile set in question is still lying with the service centre till date.

10.                   Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, mobile set has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different modes of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer.  

 11.                  In the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to replace the old mobile set in question with new one of the same mobile of same price and if the OPs No.1 & 2 are not in a position to replace the mobile set then they will refund the amount of Rs. 12,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days failing which complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulting period. Parties are left to bear their own costs.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 10.08.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA)  

                                                                        MEMBER