| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 234 of 9.6.2016 Decided on: 20.7.2017 Gita Gupta Wd/o Sh.Kamal Bansal R/o # 315, Street No.3, Gurbax Colony, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Sony Ericssion Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Dhaka House, 18/17, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
- Goel Mobiles Opposite Kaula Park, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur.
- Sankalap Enterprises (Service Centre of Sony Ericssion Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., Factory Area, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Gaurav Singla,Advocate,counsel for complainant. Sh.Puneet Gupta,Advocate,counsel for Ops No.1&3. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one Sony Ericssion Mobile phone , Model No. Xperia E4 from Op no.2, for a sum of Rs.11,200/- on 12.6.2015.It is averred that after two months of the said purchase i.e. in the month of August2015, the said mobile phone stopped working and the complainant made a telephone call to Op no.2 asking it for the replacement of the mobile phone but Op no.2 flatly refused to replace the mobile phone and advised the complainant to approach OP no.3 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company. Accordingly the complainant approached Op no.3, who informed the complainant that there was display problem and it would take 10-15 days in its repair. Op no.3 after rectifying the problem, returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Again in the month of December,2015, the said mobile phone stopped working and OP no.3 informed the complainant that there was software problem and that would take 10-15 days .After rectifying the same, OP no.3 returned the mobile phone to the complainant.In the month of February,2016, the mobile phone again stopped working and the complainant approached OP no.3, who repaired the mobile phone on the same day but did not issue any job sheet of the same. It is further averred that in the month of May,2016, the mobile phone in question again stopped working and when the complainant visited Op no.3 for its repair, official of OP no.3 refused to accept the same for its repair and started making lame excuses on one pretext or the other. On 1.6.2016, the complainant got served a legal notice to the OPs through registered post but the OPs failed to respond to the notice.The complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental agony at the hands of the OPs and failure on the part of the OPs to rectify the problem amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum underSection 12 of the Consumer Protectio Act( for short the Act),1986.
- Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OPs No.1&3 only who appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. After admitting the fact that the mobile phone in question was purchased by the complainant from OP no.2, it is submitted that the complainant approached Op no.2 on 14.9.2015, raising the issue of ‘No Picture in display’ of the mobile phone and Op No.3 replaced the ‘touch panel and front cover’ of the mobile phone. Thereafter , the complainant approached OP no.3on 2.6.2016 and the complainant raised the issue of ‘No power & No display’ in the mobile phone. On inspection by Op no.3, it was found that the mobile phone got damaged due to ‘liquid ingression’ whereas the mobile phone in question is a ‘Non – Water proof’ model. Hence its warranty stood ‘void’ due to its contact with the ‘liquid’.As such no deficiency in service could be attributed on the part of the OPs. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OPs No.1&3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA sworn affidavit of Sh.Priyank Chauhan alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OPs No.1&3 filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties, and have also gone through the record of the case,carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from Op no.2 for a sum of Rs.11,200/- on 12.6.2015.In the month of August just after two months of the said purchase, the mobile phone stopped working and the OP no.3 rectified the problem. Again in the month of December,20-15, the same problem cropped up and the OP no.3 again rectified the problem. Similarly in the month of February,2016, the same problem occurred and Op no.3 rectified the same. In the month of May,2016, when the mobile phone again stopped working, OP no.3 refused to rectify the same and on 1.6.2016, the complainant got served legal notice to OPs but the OPs failed to respond whereas the plea of OPs No.1&3 is that the complainant for the 1st time approached OP no.3 on 14.9.2015 with the issue o ‘No Picture in Display’ and Op no.3 rectified the ‘touch panel and front cover’ of the mobile phone. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP no.3 on 2.6.2016, with the problem ‘No power and No display’.On inspection, it was found that the mobile phone got damaged due to ‘liquid ingression’ and hence the warranty stood void, as the mobile phone in question was ‘Non water proof’.Ex.OP5 is the job sheet dated 2.6.2016, placed on record by the OPs showing that the mobile phone got damaged due to ‘liquid ingression’.
- During the course of arguments, the ld.counsel for the complainant argued that complainant never visited the service centre on 2.6.2016 when on 1.6.2016, the complainant got served the legal notice to the OPs, why he would visit the service centre on 2.6.2016 when OP no.3 had already refused to rectify the problem in the mobile phone, in the month of May,2016.Though OPs have produced on record the job sheet,Ex.OP5, but their job sheet is neither signed by the complainant nor by the receptionist of the service centre. The OPs have also placed on record two photographs of the mobile phone but they do not depict that these photographs pertain to the mobile phone of the complainant. In the absence of any documentary proof to show that the mobile phone in question got defective due to liquid ingression, it is very much clear that the OPs were bound to rectify the defect in the mobile phone as the problem occurred during the warranty period.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs no.1&3 to rectify the problem in the mobile phone and if that is not possible to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.11,200/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses.Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED: 20.7.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
