DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.<br /> <br /> CC.No.399 of 14.12.2009<br /> Decided on 22.03.2010<br /> Rohit Kumar S/o Rajinder Kumar S/o Mothu Ram, aged about 19 years, H.No.32364-A, Gali No.11G, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> ........Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd., through its Authorized person, 4th floor, Dakha House, 18/17 WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.<br /> 2. Sony Ericsson Authorized Service Station, through its Prop./Manager, Shop No.11, 1st floor, Shakti Complex, The Mall, Bathinda.<br /> 3. Garg General Store, through its Prop., Near Dr. Kiran Nursing Home, Bhatti Road, Aggarwal Colony, Bathinda.<br /> .......Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> Present:-<br /> For the Complainant : Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh.Ashwani Garg, Prop. of opposite party No.2 in person.<br /> Opposite party No.1 already exparte.<br /> None for opposite party No.3.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the complainant's case is that he had purchased one mobile Sony Ericsson Model F-305 on 04.01.2009 manufactured by opposite party No.1 by payment of Rs.8,500/- in cash from the opposite party No.3 with one year guarantee/warranty. After purchasing, the above said mobile handset of the complainant started giving trouble in voice i.e. when ever complainant switched the mobile set on for talking to any person than the voice of other person could not be heard and the screen of the set also became plain and everything on the screen was deleted and nothing was displayed on screen. He approached the opposite party No.3 regarding the said defect who asked him to approach opposite party No.2. He went to opposite party No.2 for repair his mobile handset and the opposite party No.2 repaired his mobile handset. After one month, the above said handset again started giving same problem and the complainant again visited the opposite party No.2 many times, but the opposite party No.2 could not solve his problem properly. Therefore, he has pleaded that the opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,500/- as original cost of mobile handset in question with interest @ 12% P.A. alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation expenses to the complainant.<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed their separate reply and pleaded that on 21.07.2009 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 with a problem of 'white display' and the opposite party No.2 repaired the mobile handset in question and delivered to the complainant on 29.07.2009. Thereafter, again the complainant come to the opposite party No.2 on 04.12.2009 with a problem of 'white picture' and they kept his mobile handset in question for repair and thereafter the complainant did not turn up to collect his repaired mobile handset despite repeated calls made by the opposite party No.2. The opposite parties pleaded that its Flex & Main Board has already been replaced due to which, its IMEI number has also been changed with new one and they are ready to extend the warranty of 90 days and a new job sheet dated 07.01.2010 has been prepared/entered with new IMEI number but the complainant did not agree to collect his repaired mobile handset in question. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. In order to prove his allegations complainant filed his own affidavit dated 12.12.2009 Ex.C-1 and also brought on record photocopy of bill dated 04.01.2009 Ex.C-2.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh.Ashwani Garg, dated 05.03.10 Ex.R-1 and also brought on record photocopies of job sheets Ex.R-2 & Ex.R-3.<br /> 5. Arguments heard. Record perused. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased one mobile Sony Ericsson Model F-305 on 04.01.2009 manufactured by opposite party No.1 of Rs.8,500/- from the opposite party No.3 with one year guarantee/warranty. The complainant alleged that it started giving problem from few days after its purchase. The mobile handset started giving trouble in voice i.e. when ever complainant switched the mobile set on for talking to any person than the voice of other person could not be heard and the screen of the set also became plain and everything on the screen was deleted and nothing was displayed on screen. Therefore, the complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to remove the defect. He visited many times for repair and many times the repairs had been done by the opposite party No.2. Despite of so many repairs, the opposite party No.2 was unable to remove the defect in the mobile handset in question. Therefore, the complainant contended that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question.<br /> 6. The opposite parties filed their separate written replies. The opposite party No.2 pleaded in his written version that the mobile handset in question after proper repair was handed over to the complainant. Its flex & Main Board has already been replaced due to which, its IMEI number has also been changed with new one and further that opposite party No.2 was also ready to extend the warranty of 90 days and a new Job Sheet dated 07.01.2010 has been prepared/entered with new IMEI number but the complainant did not come back to collect his mobile handset in question as he demanded a new mobile handset from opposite party No.2.<br /> 7. From the above discussion, this Forum concluded that the complainant got repaired his mobile handset in question on 21.07.2009, 04.12.2009 and 07.01.2010. The opposite parties were unable to remove the defect in the handset in question despite after many repairs. Therefore, this Forum is of the view that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question. The opposite party No.1 proceeded against exparte. Therefore, it is presumed that it has admitted its deficiency in service.<br /> 8. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1&2. Therefore, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment against opposite party Nos.1&2. This complaint stands dismissed against opposite party No.3. This Forum further directs the opposite party Nos.1&2 to refund the payment of Rs.8,500/- as selling price of the mobile handset in question. <br /> 9. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 10. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI)<br /> 22.03.2010 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ` (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER