Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/264

POOJA AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

25 Jan 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                Date of institution: 24.04.2015

Complaint Case. No.264/15                                                                                               Date of order:  25.01.2017                  

IN  MATTER OF

Ms. Pooja Aggarwal D/o Vijay Kumar, R/o A-43, Street No. 3, Canara Bank Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                                                                                Complainant

VERSUS

Sony India (P) ltd, A-31, I-Area, Mohan Co- operative Industrial Estate, Mathura road, Okhla Phase II, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110044.                       Opposite party-1

 

Sony Authorised Service Centre, Shop no. 7A/F19, DDA Building first floor, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058.                                                                                      Opposite party-2

 

Akanksha Mishra, Customer Ralation-North, Sony India Pvt ltd, A-31, I-Area, Mohan Co-opeative industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Okhla Phase II, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110044.                                                                                                           Opposite party-3

 

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

The present complaint is filed by Ms. Pooja Aggarwal herein complainant under section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act for directions to the opposite parties to refund  cost of mobile handset and pay  compensation for mental and physical pain, agony and sufferings.

Brief relevant facts for disposal of the present complaint are that one mobile handset Sony C6602 was purchased by the complainant from Range Teleservices for sale consideration of Rs. 31,500/- vide invoice no. R/10753 dated 01.11.2013. The mobile handset within 37 days of purchase developed fault and the complainant deposited the handset with opposite party no. 2 vide job sheet no. W113120701875 dated 07.12.2013 for repairs within warranty. The opposite party no. 2 told the complainant that the mobile handset would be repaired or replaced within four days. The complainant inquired about  

       -2-

status of her mobile handset after four days but the mobile handset was not repaired by the opposite party no. 2. However on 13.12.2013  another mobile handset was given to the complainant for use and was told that repaired handset will be given after repairs. The replaced/swapped handset also developed fault. The complainant deposited the swapped mobile handset with opposite party no. 2 for repairs vide job sheet no.W114073006395 dated 30.7.2014. The complainant visited opposite party no. 2 several times to know status of her mobile handset. She also send various communications and mails to opposite party no. 1 requesting to repair or replace the mobile handset. But opposite parties failed to repair or replace the mobile handset. Since then the complainant is running after the opposite parties to replace or refund cost of the mobile handset. But to no effect. She sent a legal notice dated 23.9.2014 to the opposite parties. The complainant received letter dated 19.11.2014 from opposite party no.1 offering exchange of the mobile handset with new mobile handset of  same model. The complainant accepted the offer of opposite party no.1. But despite offer opposite parties failed to repair or replace the mobile handset.   Therefore, there is deficiency in service on part of opposite parties and they adopted unfair trade practice to sell mobile handset having manufacturing defects. Hence the present complaint for directions to opposite parties to refund Rs. 31,500/- cost of mobile handset along with interest @ 18% per annum from 30.07.2014 till realization of the amount and also pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and  harassment.

Notice of complainant was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties filed reply to the complaint while raising preliminary objections that the complaint is devoid of any cause of action and they have provided excellent post sale services to the complainant and as a good will gesture they have offered to replace the handset vide letter dated 19.11.2014. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit. The complainant filed affidavit dated 29.03.2016 and relied upon copy of invoice dated 01.11.2013, copies of job sheet dated 07.12.2013 and  30.07.2014 and copies of several emails, copy of legal notice dated 23.09.2014, copy of  letter dated 19.11.2014 and copy of letter dated 03.12.2014. The complainant in the affidavit once again reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and controverted the stand taken by the opposite parties. She deposed that opposite parties refused to honour their own offer dated 19.11.2014. They further asserted that opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 failed to repair or replace the mobile handset within warranty.

        

     -3-

The opposite parties filed affidavit of Priyank Chauhan dated 25.07.2016 reiterating  their stand taken in the reply and deposed that there is no technical defect in the handset and they have provided post sale services to the complainant hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. They asserted that the complainant was negligent in handling the mobile handset and the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation.

From perusal of the documents on record it reveals that the complainant purchased one mobile handset Sony C6602 from Range Teleservices for sale consideration of Rs. 31,500/- vide invoice no. R/10753 dated 01.11.2013. The mobile handset developed fault. The complainant deposited the handset with opposite party no. 2 vide job sheet no. W113120701875 dated 07.12.2013 within warranty for repairs. However on 13.12.2013  another mobile handset was given to the complainant for use. The same also developed fault and was given for repairs vide job sheet no. W114073006395 dated 30.07.2014. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 1 offered to replace the mobile hand set with a new mobile handset of same make and model vide letter dated 19.11.2014. The complainant accepted the offer vide letter dated 03.12.2014.  But despite acceptance of the offer the opposite parties failed to replace the old mobile handset with new one.

The complainant from affidavit and material placed on record has been able to show that she purchased one mobile handset Sony C6602 from Range Teleservices for sale consideration of Rs. 31,500/- vide invoice no. R/10753 dated 01.11.2013. The mobile handset developed fault within warranty.  The complainant deposited the handset with opposite party no. 2 vide job sheet no. W113120701875 dated 07.12.2013 for repairs. But the opposite party no.2 failed to repair or replace the mobile handset till today.  There is sufficient material on record to show that the opposite party no. 1 offered exchange of the mobile handset but despite acceptance of the offer by the complainant they failed to exchange. Therefore, the opposite parties are deficient in service and adopted unfair trade practice. The complainant is deprived of valuable right to use mobile handset. Hence the opposite parties are liable to refund the cost of mobile handset and pay compensation on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.

In light of above discussion and observations the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund cost of mobile handset Rs. 31,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from filing of the complaint till actual realization of the amount and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony,  harassment and litigation expenses.  

         -4-

Theyar jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.

Order pronounced on :25.01.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                    (URMILA GUPTA)                                        (R.S.  BAGRI)

   MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT