DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 48 of 01-02-2010<br /> Decided on : 23-04-2010 <br /> <br /> Rupinder Gupta @ Monty Gupta (Advocate) S/o Tarsem Lal Gupta, R/o Street No. 19, Kacha Vaas, Raman District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Private Limited, 4th Floor, Dakha House, 18/17 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi.<br /> 2.M/s. Allied Electronics, Shop No. 9, SSD Sabha, Subash Market, Bathinda.<br /> 3.Owner/Manager of Allied Communications, Shop No. 11, Ist Floor, Shakti Complex, The Mall, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member <br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Ashwani Garg, Prop. of opposite party No. 3. <br /> Sh. Sanjay Garg, Prop. of opposite party No. 2.<br /> Opposite party No. 1 already exparte.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief the case of the complainant is that he had purchased Sony Ericsson W910i mobile hand set vide bill No. 608 on 01-01-2009 for Rs. 12,850/- from opposite party No. 2. As per policy every mobile hand set Sony Ericsson make have got one year warranty against any technical and manufacturing defect. The mobile hand set of the complainant was not working properly as its screen shut off automatically and after sometimes automatically gets started. Apart from this, some of its important functions were not working properly. He contacted opposite party No. 3 who assured him that defects would be got repaired free of cost and if there was major manufacturing defect, it would replaced. However, job sheet was not issued to him on the pretext that their system was not working properly. Upto 4th January, the opposite parties did not issue him job sheet and thereafter told him that now it was not possible for them to repair/replace the mobile hand set free of cost as the warranty period has expired on 31-12-2009. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to repair the mobile hand set in question or replace it with a new one and pay him compensation and costs.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 was duly served with registered A.D. notice but failed to appear before this Forum. Thus, exparte proceedings were taken against it. <br /> 3. Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 filed joint reply and submitted that complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 3 only once i.e. on 06-08-2009 through his representative Sh. Sanjeev Gupta with the complaint “Can't power on (phone is dead) i.e. system connector related problem. The opposite party No. 3 in the presence of the representative of the complainant cleaned the part of the mobile hand set and upgraded the software free of cost and after repairing the same returned it on the same day to Sh. Sanjeev Gupta. Thereafter, complainant never approached opposite party No. 3. It has been specifically denied that opposite party No. 3 got deposited handset of the complainant. Rather there is no such defects in the handset in question and the same is still in his possession and is being used by him. However, it has been pleaded that there was no reason for well educated person like complainant to deposit his handset with opposite party No. 3 without obtaining job sheet.<br /> 4. Parties have led evidence besides filing affidavits in support of their respective pleadings.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.<br /> 6. Admittedly the complainant purchased mobile hand set of Sony Ericsson W910i make vide bill No. 608 dated 01-01-2009 for Rs. 12,850/- with one year warranty from 01-01-2009 till 31-12-2009 from opposite party No. 2. The story put forth by the complainant in his complaint regarding depositing of mobile hand set in the office of opposite party No. 3 without issuance of job sheet and subsequent denial by opposite party No. 3 from repairing mobile hand set without charging Rs. 4,000/- due to expiry of warranty period not appears to be genuine as the opposite party No. 2 vide Ex. R-2 proved on file that no such person namely Sh. Rupinder Gupta complainant and Sh. Sanjeev Gupta who allegedly accompanied the complainant ever visited the service centre of opposite party No. 3 because there is no such entry of the visitor in Ex. R-2. The opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 have admitted that on 06-08-2009 Sh. Sanjeev Gupta has got hand set in question repaired from service centre meaning thereby that during the warranty period some defect had occurred in the hand set in question and similarly the same defect has again occurred after immediate expiry of mobile hand set. Therefore, it is the duty of the opposite parties to repair the hand set because the goods which have been purchased by any customer supposed to work properly within the warranty period.<br /> 7. In view of what has been discussed above, the hand set in question is not working properly immediately before/after the expiry of warranty period. Even the present complaint has been filed within one month of the expiry of warranty period. Hence, this complaint is partly accepted without any order as to costs and opposite party No. 3 is directed to repair the mobile hand set of the complainant free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 23-04-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />