BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sohan Singh resident of House No.172-B, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  M/s Sony Ericson India, SCO 23, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh.

    2^nd Address:

    Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4^th Floor, Dakha House, 18/17, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005.

2]  Paras Enterprises, SCO 370, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

                 ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Hari Om Chaudhary, Counsel for Complainant.

          OP No.1 already ex-parte.      

Sh.P.B.Sharma, Counsel for OP No.2.   

PER DR.[MRS.]MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         It is case of the complainant that he purchased a Sony Ericson Mobile hand set Model K-10, vide invoice No.4633 for a sum of Rs.10,400/- from OP No.1. The handset was found defective and complainant accordingly approached the OP No.2 to rectify the defects or change the mobile. The OP No.2 suggested the complainant to approach the office of OP No.1. Accordingly, complainant approached OP No.1 on 5.2.2010 alongwith his son Virender. The OP No.1 vide order No.SE310RTC10890 kept the mobile for repair etc. Thereafter, the mobile was delivered to the son of the complainant on 27.2.2010. It is alleged that mobile was changed with another set and to clear the doubt, the complainant checked the IMEI No. of the mobile delivered by OP No.1 with that of the numbers stated in the invoice dated 17.3.2009 and shocked to see that the IMEI number of the mobile was absolutely different. It is further alleged that the mobile purchased by the complainant has not been returned to him so far despite repeated requests and the same has been changed with another old set. Hence, this complaint.

2.       OP No.1 did not turn up despite service and suffered ex-parte.

3.       In their written reply, OP No.2 admitted the factual aspect about purchasing the mobile. It is pleaded that the complainant has no case against it and the complainant has failed to show any deficiency in service on its part. In these circumstances, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.

4.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

6.       The dispute between the parties in this complaint is that the mobile handset, which was purchased from OP No.2, when got defective, within the warranty period of one year, was taken to OP No.1, on the directions of OP No.2, in order to rectify the defects therein. Ultimately, after carrying out the necessary repairs, the OP No.1 delivered back the handset to the Complainant’s son on 27.2.2010, which was later on, found to be another set, carrying distinct and different IMEI No. with that of mentioned in the invoice dated 17.03.2009 [C-1]. It is argued that the original mobile handset has not been returned to the Complainant, despite repeated visits and requests.

7.       The OP No.1 was served, but it did not care to contest the claim of the Complainant, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either this OP admits the claim of the Complainant or it has nothing to say in the matter.

8.       On the other hand, it is the stand of OP No.2 that the mobile handset in question was sold to the Complainant on 17.3.2009, after satisfying the Complainant with regard to the specification and working of the mobile set. This OP has denied any deficiency in providing service on its part, as the defects in the mobile handset was due to its handling by the Complainant himself. It is argued that in case, any defect comes in the mobile handset, it is for the Complainant to approach the service centre of Sony Ericsson India. 

9.       After going through the details of the present case, it has been observed that the mobile handset in question, which was purchased from the OP No.1 vide Annexure C-1, got defective, within the warranty period of one year (C-2). The same was returned to the Complainant’s son by the OP No.1, after carrying out necessary repairs. But as per the assertion of the Complainant, OP No.1 did not deliver the original handset to his son; rather, it mischievously changed the same with another old set, with distinct and different IMEI No.  Otherwise also, the said allegation made in the complaint has gone un-rebutted and un-controverted.

10.      This being so, it is well established and proved beyond doubt that OPs are carrying out service in a negligent and deficient manner, thereby causing harassment to the Complainant and replacing his original handset with another old set containing different IMEI, surely amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice.          

11.      From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, it is our considered view, that the present case has a lot of merit, substance and weight and it richly deserves acceptance. Therefore, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs.

12.      Keeping in view the above, the OPs, shall jointly and severally, do the following:-

i]  Replace the second hand/old mobile handset (Sony Ericson K-10) given to the Complainant, with a new of the same model and configuration, along with fresh warranty from the date of such replacement.

ii] The OPs shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant for causing physical harassment, mental agony and lot of inconvenience.

iii]    The OPs shall pay litigation costs of Rs.2000/- to the Complainant.

13.      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, they shall pay the sum of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 01.10.2010, till the date of realization, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs.2000/- and complying with the order as at (i) in the foregoings. However, it is made clear that the old mobile set, along with its accessories, shall be returned by the complainant to OPs, on receipt of the total amount.

14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.