BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Deepak Aggarwal son of late Shri K.C. Agarwal resident of House No.5A, Sector 36A, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (Pvt.) Ltd., 4^th Floor, Dakha House, 17/17 WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

2.      Sony Ericsson, RT-Chandigarh, SCO 23, Sector 18D, Chandigarh.

3.      G.C. Enterprises, Booth No.249, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: None for complainant.

OPs ex-parte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL,  MEMBER

             Succinctly put, on 29.10.2008 the complainant purchased a Sony Ericsson T-700 mobile phone for Rs.11,700/- from OP-3.  However, just within six months the handset developed some defect and could not be turned on.  He took the same to OP-3 who returned the same after a day saying it would work properly but after 15 days the handset again stopped functioning and was handed back after repairs.  Thereafter, on 22.7.2009 the handset again stopped functioning and when he approached OP-3 they after examining the handset directed him to contact OP-2 as the set was still under warranty.  He went to the showroom of OP-2 on 22.7.2009, delivered the handset and they told him that the same would be returned within a week.  However, even in spite of making number of visits the set was not returned. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             OP-1 did not file reply and evidence despite number of opportunities, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.1.2010.

3.             In their written reply OP-2 have admitted the facts with regard to purchase, warranty and receipt of the handset in question for repairs.  However, it has been denied that the complainant was ever assured that the handset would be returned within a week.  It has been submitted that after due diagnosis of the handset it was found that the same was completely dead and acting as a good service provider the answering OP offered a new handset to the complainant in replacement of his old handset which offer was duly accepted by him on 7.8.2009 and he even took the delivery of the new handset to his complete satisfaction. It has been submitted that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to pressurize the answering OP to fulfill his illegal and frivolous demands. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

After filing reply, OP-2 did not file evidence despite taking number of opportunities for the same, therefore, vide order dated 1.1.2010 OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.             OP-3 did not appear despite due service, hence it was proceeded against exparte.

5.             Complainant has led evidence in support of his contentions.

6.             We have gone through the record as none appeared for the parties to pursue the case.    

7.             It is very much clear from the above facts that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OP-2 (Service centre for OP-1) had sent the defective mobile to the manufacturer (OP-1). When they found the above said mobile could not be repaired, they replaced the defective handset with a new one on 7.08.09 i.e. within the warrantee period and the complaint took the delivery of the new handset to his complete satisfaction. In our opinion the complaint is vague, false and frivolous as the said mobile phone of the complainant was replaced by the manufacturer (OP-1) within the warranty period, which was satisfactorily accepted by the complainant. The complaint was false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainant and was filed with the sole motive to harass the OPs or to put pressure on them and to extract money. However, when the OP intimated this fact through his written reply, the complainant stopped attending the hearings and did not file even a rejoinder denying the receipt of replaced mobile set which shows that there was no grievance with the complainant to file this complaint.

8.              In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the complaint has no merit and the same deserves dismissal.  We order accordingly.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.