Haryana

StateCommission

A/441/2016

NITESH PANJETA ALIAS ROMMY PANJETA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA PV.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.CHOKAR

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    441 of 2016

Date of Institution:    19.05.2016

Date of Decision :     19.10.2016

 

Nitesh Panjeta alias Rommy Panjeta s/o Sh. Subey Singh, Resident of Village Kathwala, P.O. Mehlanwali, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Presently, Resident of Bilaspur, near Saraswati Secondary School, Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Sony India Private Limited, A-31, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi-110044.

2.      Sony Care Center Kamla Nagar, Chhoti Line, Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager.

3.      Mahendiratta Communication, H.no.68-A, Model Town, Mela Singh Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, through its proprietor (Ex-parte).

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Shyam Singh Chhokar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Deepak Sharma, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal of unsuccessful complainant is directed against the order dated April 8^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Nitesh Panjeta-complainant/respondent, was dismissed.

2.                The complainant-respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he purchased a mobile set of Sony Xperia C-5302 from Mahendiratta Communication-Opposite Party No.3, manufactured by Sony India Private Limited-Opposite Party No.1. Sony Care Center-Opposite Party No.2 was the Service Centre of the manufacturer. The grievance of the complainant was that the clarity of the picture taken through mobile set was not good. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant sought compensation.

3.                The opposite parties No.1 and 2 contested complaint by filing written version wherein they denied the allegations of the complainant. opposite party No.3 did not contest the complaint and was proceeded exparte.

4.                The question for consideration is as to whether there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset with respect to take picture, or not?

5.                Paragraphs No.3 of the complaint reads as under:-

“3.     That one or two pictures which were taken just after the purchase of the phone and the pictures taken recently show that the quality of the picture is the same as before and the pictures taken at both the times are not clear enough looking to fact that it is a camera of 8 Mega Pixel.”     

6.                Annexure C-2 is the Service Job Sheet whereby the mobile set was repaired. Indisputably, the mobile set was purchased on 23^rd July, 2014 and was got repaired on 10^th June, 2015 that is, after about one year. At that time, in the column of “ASC comments” it is mentioned that scratches were there on rear camera glasses.  There is nothing on the record to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile set. Clarity of the picture was reduced with the passage of time because there were scratches on the camera lens of the phone.  So, the respondents cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

7.                In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced: 19.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL