BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 452 of 2015
Date of Institution: 23.7.2015
Date of Decision: 13.5.2016
Sh.Bhupinder Singh aged 40 years son of Sh.Pargat Singh, resident of Patti Behniwal, Sultanwind ,Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Sony India Pvt.Ltd., through its General Manager/Manager/Authorized Officer, A-31, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044
- Authorized Service Centre for Sony Mobiles, through its Manager/authorized officer, National Shopping Centre, Near Waryam Singh Hospital, Amritsar
- M/s. Punjab Time Centre, through its Prop./Partner,Hall Bazar, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Rajesh Bhatia,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Smt.Parkashdeep Kaur,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Bhupinder Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for purchase of a Sony Experia M2 mobile on 10.6.2015. The complainant was to make the payment of said mobile phone through credit card but opposite party No.3 told the complainant that in case the complainant shall make the payment through credit card, then they shall hand over the mobile phone on the next day after checking the bank account. As such the complainant made the payment of the mobile phone to the tune of Rs. 13566/- through his credit card of HDFC Bank in favour of opposite prty No.3 . On the next day on 11.6.2015 the complainant approached opposite party N.3 and they handed over sealed pack box of above referred mobile phone bearing EMI No. 353953060981662 alongwith bill bearing No. 43038 dated 11.6.2015 to the complainant. However, when the said box was opened by the complainant in the shop, it was found that the place where the SIM card is to be inserted was already broken. The complainant refused to accept the said mobile phone being already damaged, but the opposite party No.3 requested the complainant that mobile phone was under warranty and they shall replace the broken part of the mobile phone from opposite party No.2, which is the service centre of Sony mobile phone. As such the complainant alongwith opposite party No.3 approached opposite party No.2 and requested it to replace the damaged part of the mobile phone. The opposite party assured the complainant that they will replace the particular part of the mobile phone after some days, as the said part was not available at their centre . They further told the complainant to use the mobile hand set in dispute in the meanwhile. Thereafter complainant made so many personal visits to the office of opposite party No.2 and 3 for replacing the particular damaged part of the mobile phone, but opposite parties went on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other . About two days back, opposite party No.2 refused to replace the damaged part of the mobile phone and rather had demanded Rs. 6700/- from the complainant to replace the damaged part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written reply wherein matter relating to details of purchase was not denied. It is denied that any part of the mobile handset in dispute required any repair. The entire story stated in the complaint has been specifically denied. It is stated that handset was liquid ingression and hence warranty on the same was void. There is no deficiency of service at all . It is denied that the complainant has suffered any mental tension, pain, agony, monetary loss or harassment at the hands of the opposite parties and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Rajesh Bhatia,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 11.6.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of payment receipt through ATM Ex.C-3, original letter dated 2.9.2015 Ex.C-4, original postal cover Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Smt.Parkashdeep Kaur,Adv.counsel for opposite parties No.1,2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Priyank Chauhan, Officer Ex.OP1,2,3/1, copy of authority letter Ex.OP1,2,3/2 & Ex.OP1,2,3/3, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP1,2,3/4, copy of letter dated 2.9.2015 Ex.OP1,2,3/5, photograph Ex.OP1,2,3/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1,2 & 3. In additional evidence opposite parties No.1 to 3 tendered copies of job sheets Ex.OP1,2,3/7 and Ex.OP1,2,3/8.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased mobile handset in dispute on 11.6.2015 vide bill, copy whereof is Ex.C-2 for a consideration of Rs. 13566/-. It is also proved on record that the complainant also made a complaint that a part of the mobile handset was broken when it was delivered to him on 11.6.2015. But, however, opposite parties did not repair/replace the broken part of the same despite number of requests made by him. The mobile handset in dispute was within warranty. The job sheets Ex.OP1,2,3/7 and Ex.OP1,2,3/8 also fortify the case of the complainant. But, however, the opposite party did not repair/replace the broken part of the mobile handset till date. In such a situation, it can safely be held that opposite parties were deficient in service.
7. Consequently, instant complaint is allowed to the extent that opposite parties shall repair the mobile handset in dispute including replacement of the broken part to the satisfaction of the complainant free of cost. Compliance of this order shall be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 13.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
