DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Shivam Garg son of Sh. Rajesh Garg r/o House No.400, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Sony Ericson Experience Store, Standard Electronics, Show Room No.1049, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its authorised representative.

2.                 Sony, 3^rd Floor, Adarsh Mall, Plot No.50, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh through its authorised representative.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Rajesh Garg, Counsel for the complainants.

                        OPs exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Shivam Garg has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs against the opposite parties:-

i)                   replace the mobile set in question

ii)                to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation

iii)              to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 5.7.2012 he purchased a Sony Ericson (WT 19i model) mobile phone from opposite party No.1 vide bill (C-1).  The mobile set started giving problem and sometimes would get hanged.

                   According to the complainant, in October 2012 the handset went out of order.  It has been averred by the complainant that since he was in Delhi (as he is pursuing B.Tech. from IIT Delhi), he got the mobile handset checked from the authorised dealer of opposite party No.2 at Nehru Place.  However, it refused to accept the same for want of original cash memo.  Subsequently, the complainant approached the authorised service centre of opposite party No.2 at Chandigarh but it refused to repair the same, though it was under warranty.  The complainant was told that the software has gone out of order.  The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice dated 5.11.2012 but to no avail. According to the complainant, failure on the part of the opposite parties to repair the handset amounts to deficiency in service.

In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           Opposite parties did not appear despite service, hence were proceeded against exparte. 

4.                           Annexure C-1 is the invoice dated 5.7.2012 vide which the complainant purchased the mobile hand set in question for Rs.13,500/-.  According to the complainant the mobile set started giving problems and would get hanged. The complainant took the mobile set to the authorised service centre of opposite party No.2.  Annexure C-2 is the writing whereby, according to the complainant, the authorised service centre of the opposite party refused to repair the mobile set on the ground that software of the handset has been modified, although it has also been admitted therein that the set was within the warranty period.  Annexure C-3 is the legal notice whereby the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile hand set.  In support of his contentions, the complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit.

5.                           The opposite parties did not appear to controvert the averments of the complainants.  Therefore, the stand of the complainants goes unrebutted and the opposite parties are proved to be deficient in rendering service.

6.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

(i)                to replace the handset with a new one of the same make and model.  However, if the mobile handset of the same make and model is not available, then the opposite parties shall refund the price thereof i.e. Rs.13,500/-;

(ii)             to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

(iii)           to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

7.                           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

5.2.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg