DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Simranjit Singh, R/o H.No.6, District Jail, Ropar.

---Complainant

Vs.

(1)  Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044, through its Managing Director.

(2)  Sony Authorized Service Centre/ Accel Frontline Services Limited, SCO No. 644, Kesho Ram Complex, 2^nd Floor, Burail, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

(3)  M/s Royal Telecom, Shop No. 78, Opp. City Kotwali, Faridkot.

(4)  M/s Jaura Communication, the World of Mobiles, Booth No. 45, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Prop./ Authorised Signatory.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. D.S. Nigha, Counsel for the Complainant, along with

           Sh. Simranjit Singh, Complainant.

           Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.

           Sh. Viney Kumar, Auth. Representative of Opposite Party No.2.

           Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

           Opposite Party No.4 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The Complainant had purchased a Sony Ericsson (Xperia Mini) mobile handset from the Opposite Party No.3 on 05.11.2011 for Rs.13,500/- (Bill Annexure C-1). As there were many problems found in the said mobile handset, the Complainant visited Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 from time to time but no fruitful results came out. As the Complainant was fed up with visiting the Opposite Parties a number of times, he purchased a new mobile handset of the same company & model (Xperia ST151) for a total consideration of Rs.13,500/- on 07.01.2012 from Opposite Party No.4 (Bill Annexure C-2).  

          It is alleged that the second mobile handset was also found defective and not working properly. The Complainant had approached the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 a number of times for redressal of his grievance, who guided him to the Service Centre. Defects were found in the mobile handset and the Complainant deposited the same with the Opposite Party No.2 for rectification. Delivery was to be given on 15.03.2012 (Job sheet Annexure C-3). Thereafter, the Complainant has been visited the Opposite Parties a number of times for removal of defect or for replacement of the mobile handsets. However, the handsets were not delivered to him. As per job sheets dated 04.09.2012 and 17.10.2012 the mobile sets were offered back to the Complainant but the Complainant refused to take both the handsets as the defects were not removed. There were many problems in the mobile handsets. 

          The Complainant has thus filed the present complaint for refund of the amount of Rs.13,500/- each for the two mobile handsets, besides compensation and costs of litigation. 

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 4, therefore, these were proceeded against exparte on 21.02.2013.

3.          Opposite Party No.3, initially, appeared through Sh. Jaspreet Singh Brar, Advocate on 21.02.2013 and thereafter, Sh. Gurdip Singh, Advocate had appeared as proxy counsel for Sh. Jaspreet Singh Brar, but subsequently as none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3, hence vide order dated 13.05.2013, Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.

4.          Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the Complainant had purchased a mobile (Sony Xperia) on 05.11.2011. Thereafter, he purchased another mobile handset of the same brand again on 07.01.2012. Answering Opposite Party asserted that any consumer will not be interested in purchasing a failure product again. This clearly shows that the consumer was satisfied with the brand purchased. The claims of the Complainant regarding bringing the mobile phones to the service centre for rectification have been said to be false and frivolous. The 1^st mobile handset purchased on 5.11.2011 was submitted for repair on 01.09.2012 and was returned on 04.09.2012. The problems in the mobile handset were vibrating alert problem (Annexure C-4). The service was done free of costs in adherence to warranty policy. The second mobile handset was submitted for repairs for the first time on 18.10.2012 and was made ready on 06.11.2012 but the Complainant refused to take back the mobile handset since the warranty had expired. Only the front cover assembly was changed as there was no other problem in the mobile handset. Software was also upgraded as per the procedure.    

          As per the contentions of the answering Opposite Party, each time the mobile handsets have been submitted for repair, they have been returned with the repairs made, as per the terms of warranty, details of which have been annexed by the complaint at annexures to the complaint. Opposite Party has submitted that visiting the service centre two or more times does not render a mobile handset with inherent manufacturing defects. Certain usage malfunctions and unwarranted software downloading not supported by the default set-up of the mobile too cause such problems which is termed as customer induced defects. Also, the Complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion to prove his allegations. Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint, as also direction to the Complainant to take back his mobile handsets which are ready for delivery since November, 2012.  

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.          At the time of arguments, Authorized Representative of the Opposite Party No.2 has brought back two (02) repaired mobile handsets to be handed over to the Complainant and stated at bar that now, the mobile handsets were free from any defect. However, the Complainant did not wish to accept the same.   

7.          We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and Authorized Representative of the Opposite Party No.2 (Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 being ex-parte) and have perused the record.

8.          The allegations of the Complainant with regard to the defects in the mobile handsets are substantiated by the job sheets placed on record by him. It is also proved from the same job sheets that the mobile handsets have been repaired and handed back to the Complainant rectified. There is no proof that the defects in the mobile handsets are unrectifiable.

9.          The Complainant has insisted on refund of the price of the mobile handsets only. To our mind, when the mobile handsets are almost two years old, the prayer of the Complainant for refund of the price cannot be acceded to. It is relevant to add here that the mobile handsets are lying repaired with the Opposite Party No.2 since November, 2012 and the Complainant has himself refused to accept the same.  

10.        So in the interest of justice, we allow this complaint and pass the following orders:-

[a]  The Complainant will take back the repaired handsets from the Opposite Party No.2;

[b]  Opposite Party No.2 will give a fresh warranty of six months on the said mobile handsets from the date of this order;      

11.        In the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.

12.        This order be complied with by the parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

13.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

02^nd August, 2013                    

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER