DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 79/2015
Date of Institution : 28.04.2015
Date of Decision : 26.08.2015
Baneet Kumar Garg son of Surinder Kumar resident of # No. 319, Sec-12A, Chandigarh (UT).
…Complainant
Versus
Sony India Pvt. Limited, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura New Delhi through its M.D.
Kanpur Watch and Mobile Shop, Sadar Bazar Barnala-149101 Tehsil and District Barnala.
RAI & SONS S.C.O. No. 60 Sector 47C Chandigarh.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rajan Chaudhary counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 3.
Sh. Rajiv Goel counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER):
The complainant Baneet Kumar Garg has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against the Sony India Pvt. Limited and others (hereinafter called as the opposite parties) on the ground that the complainant purchased a Mobile Set of Sony Xperia-C Black CZ 305, by paying an amount of Rs. 16,500/- vide bill No. 248 dated 29.4.2014 from the opposite party No. 2.
2. The grievance of the complainant is that the said mobile set developed multiple defects and its screen stopped giving signals all of sudden. On 25.2.2015 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3, who is the authorized service provider of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 3 kept the mobile set of complainant for few days and returned the same by assuring that the mobile set would be given perfect and accurate service after two days. But the mobile set again started giving the same problems, which were assured to be removed.
3. It is further alleged that on 12.3.2015 complainant served a legal notice through his Advocate thereby demanding that either to replace the mobile set of the complainant with a brand new set or to return the entire amount within seven days from the receipt of notice. The notices were sent to the opposite parties through registered post vide postal receipts dated 21.3.2015, but of no use. Therefore, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
To replace the mobile set of the complainant with a brand new set or to pay the amount of Rs. 16,500/-.
To pay Rs. 30,000/- on account of mental tension and physical harassment.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 appeared and filed joint written version taking preliminary objections on the ground that complaint is vexatious and baseless. It is admitted that the complainant purchased a Sony XPERIA bearing model No. C2305 with IMEI No. 358095059519841 on 29.4.2014. The complainant enjoyed the said mobile set without any sort of defect for the period of almost 10 months and on 25.2.2015 approached the opposite party No. 1 with a false complaint that the said mobile set developed multiple defects and the screen has stopped giving signals all of sudden. However, after inspection the said mobile set was found liquid logged, which was duly demonstrated to the complainant. It further is submitted that the said mobile set could not be covered under warranty as the same was damaged on account of water ingression, which is purely an external factor for which the opposite parties cannot be held liable. Moreover, the opposite parties offered the complainant a new mobile phone of same make in exchange of 80% price of current MRP, but the same was refused by the complainant. Therefore, they have denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. In reply, the opposite party No. 2 filed separate written version taking legal objections on the grounds of cause of action, locus-standi, concealment of material facts, maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 denied the allegations of the complainant. It is submitted that the opposite party No. 2 is doing the business of selling watches and mobile sets and the opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of Sony Mobile Sets and the opposite party No. 3 is the Authorized Service Center of opposite party No. 1. It is further submitted that the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 are legally bound to repair and remove the defects or change the mobile set. At the time of sale of the above said mobile, the opposite party No. 2 advised the complainant regarding the service of mobile set. The complainant never approached the opposite party No. 2 after the purchase of above said mobile set. Hence, they denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, bill dated 29.4.2014 Ex.C-2, copy of legal notice Ex.C-3, postal receipt Ex.C-4, copy of legal notice Ex.C-5 and postal receipt Ex.C-6, service job sheet dated 25.2.2015 Ex.C-7 and retail invoice Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Priyank Chauhan Ex. O.P1.3/1, copy of resolution Ex.OP1.3/2, copy of important information Ex.O.P1.3/3, photograph Ex.O.P1.3/4 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case of complain, the opposite party No. 2 also tendered in evidence an affidavit of Hari Chand Gupta Ex.O.P2/1 and closed the evidence.
9. We have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties and heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties at length.
10. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased a Mobile Set of Make Sony X Peria-C Black CZ 305 for a sum of Rs. 16,500/- vide Bill No. 248 dated 29.4.2014 Ex.C-2. It is also admitted fact that the above said Mobile Set is within warranty period. It is admitted that the Mobile Set in question developed multiple defects and its screen stopped giving signals all of sudden, which is proved from the Service Job Sheet of opposite party No. 3 Ex.C-7, wherein the column of Customer Complaint and ASC Comments it is mentioned “No Display” and the condition of set is mentioned “Good”. The complainant further in order to prove his case tendered in evidence his own detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
11. On the other hand the case of the opposite parties is that the Mobile Set of the complainant developed defects due to water ingression in it.
12. But we are of the opinion that the factum of presence of water content is nowhere recorded in the Service Job Sheet Ex.C-7. The opposite parties have failed to place on record any document or adduce evidence to indicate that the defects in the Mobile Set were due to water content. Neither there is any report of an expert to show that the Mobile Set became defective due to mishandling by the complainant and there was no technical defect. Despite repeated requests the grievance of the complainant was not redressed. In such a situation, we are of the considered view that no proper services were rendered to the complainant by the opposite parties and due to this reason the complainant was forced to indulge in litigation. We are of the view that the opposite parties have failed to bring on record an affidavit of that person, who has inspected/examined the Mobile Set of complainant.
13. In view of the above discussion, there is a merit in the complaint, therefore the same is accepted against the opposite parties and the opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with a brand new set or to pay the amount of Rs. 16,500/-. They are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
26th Day of August, 2015.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
I do agree
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
