DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Parveen Kumar Garg S/o Sh.Ved Parkash Garg, r/o Near Garhwal Sabha, Shiv Mandir Street, Nada Road, Dashmesh Nagar, Naya Gaon – 160103.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Sony Ericsson through its authorized service provider Accel Care Center, Modern Hitech System, SCO No.179-180, Top Floor, Near Mehfil Hotel, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

2.       Accel Care Center, Modern Hitech System, SCO No.179-180, Top Floor, Near Mehfil Hotel, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

3.       Standard Teletronics, Show Room No.1049, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Incharge.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM:      SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL            PRESIDING MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER 

Argued by:          Complainant in person.

                             OPs already exparte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one mobile of Sony Ericsson ST15i from OP No.3 vide Invoice No.26473 dated 01.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.12,852/-. According to the complainant, soon after its purchase, it started giving a number of problems and as such, he approached time and again to OPs No.2 & 3 on 21.11.2011, 31.1.2012, 8.2.2012, 22.2.2012 and 5.3.2012 respectively but the problem in the mobile set could not be rectified. The complainant visited the office of OP No.2 on 02.04.2012 and requested to replace the defective mobile set or refund of the amount but OP No.2 advised him to approach OP No. 3. Thereafter, the complainant approached OPs No.1 & 3 to replace the mobile set or refund the amount, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.                OPs No.1 and 2 refused to accept the notice. Hence, they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.07.2012. OP No.3 did not appear despite due service as such it was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.08.2012.

3.                The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4.                We have heard the complainant in person and have also perused the record.

5.                The averments made in the complaint, as reproduced above in para No.1 of the order, stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant, as well as the Exhibits C-1 to C-7.  Exhibit C-1 is the copy of the bill No.26473 dated 01.11.2011. From this document, it is proved that the Sony Ericsson Mobile Set, Model No. ST15i was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.12,852/- from OP No.3.  Exhibit C-2 is the copy of workorder No.SE31146511683 dated 21.11.2011. From this document, it is proved that the mobile set was having the problem of ‘AFTER HEATING APPLICATION NOT WORK’ and in the column Repair Details, it has been mentioned in the Engineer Remarks that ‘Software Upgrade’. Exhibit C-3 is the copy of workorder No.SE31246510202 dated 31.01.2012. From this document, it is proved that the mobile set was having the problem of ‘KEYS AUTO WORK, VIBRATION AUTOMATICLALY’ and in the column Repair Details, it has been mentioned in the Engineer Remarks that ‘Software Upgrade’. Exhibit C-4 is the copy of workorder No.SE31246510260 dated 08.02.2012. From this document, it is proved that the mobile set was having the problem of ‘KEYS AUTO WORK, VIBRATION AUTOMATIC, NETWORK PROB SOMETIME’ and in the column Repair Details, it has been mentioned in the Engineer Remarks that ‘Board Swap Handling, Software Upgrade.’ Exhibit C-5 & C-6 are the copies of workorder No.SE31246510375 dated 22.02.2012. From these documents, it is again proved that the mobile set was having the problem of ‘TOUCH NOT WORKING’ and in the column Repair Details, it has been mentioned in the Engineer Remarks that ‘1248-4551 (Cover Front assy Black), Software Upgrade.’ Furthermore, exhibit   C-7 is the copy of workorder No.SE31246510523 dated 15.03.2012. From which, it has been proved that the mobile set was having the problem of ‘AUTO OFF, NETWORK PROB, BACK KEY AUTO WORK, TOUCH NOT WORK’ and in the column Repair Details, it has been mentioned in the Engineer Remarks that ‘Board Swap Handling, Software Upgrade.’

6.                Otherwise also, the allegations made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and un-controverted as nobody appeared on behalf of the OPs to contest the case. Non appearance of the OPs clearly proves that the OPs have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant in the present complaint. Therefore, the act and conduct of the OPs proved beyond any doubt that the averments made/raised in the complaint are just and correct. The complainant seemed to be much within its rights to establish the case in its favour. Henceforth non-replacing of the defective mobile set or refund of the amount, despite repeated requests of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

7.                As a result of the above discussion and in the interest of justice and equity, we opine, that the present complaint has weightage, therefore, it is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to refund Rs.12,852/- being the price of the mobile set to the complainant. They are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as lump sum compensation and litigation costs. 

8.                This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to refund the awarded amount i.e. (Rs.12,852/-) along with penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization, besides Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation and litigation costs.

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