DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 756/2016
No. __________________ Dated : ____________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
DEEPAK JAIN S/o SH. N.K. JAIN,
R/o410, GALI No-2, GANESH NAGAR-II,
SHAKARPUR, DELHI-110092. …COMPLAINANT
,
VERSUS
1. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,
A-31, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDL. ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044.
2. IMMORTAL SERVICES,
1/15, 1ST FLLOR, LALITA PARK,
OPPOSITE METRO PILLAR No. 26,
LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092. …OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 10.08.2016
Date of Decision: 14.09.2018
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that he
CC No. 756/2016 Page 1 of 7
purchased one mobile set model Sony Experia-Z3+ IMEI no. 35905706-143678-5 on 01.01.2016 vide invoice no. 6006 of Rs.56,900/- with one year guarantee from Shivam Communication, R-22, Shop No.3, Kaneja Complex, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092. The complainant further alleged that the mobile handset after few days of purchasing became faulty i.e. display, hanging & over heat problem and the complainant contacted OP-2 on 29.04.2016 where available officials checked the mobile handset and kept for repairing and OP-2 delivered the same after 20-22 days. The complainant further alleged that after repairing the mobile handset still there is problem of over-heating & hanging, besides the mobile handset in question has not been properly fitted by OP-2 when the complainant contacted OP-2 and made complaint in this regard upon which OP-2 refused to repair and stated that the mobile handset in question is out of warrantee. The complainant further alleged that the OPs totally failed to remove the defect from the mobile handset and the quality of the mobile handset is very poor and the mobile handset must be replaced by the OPs jointly or severally immediately as OP-1 through seller provided the guarantee for one year & the same hasbecome faulty within the guarantee period and the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint and
CC No. 756/2016 Page2 of 7
prayed for direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.56,900/- being the cost of mobile handset given by the complainant to Shivam Communication as well as compensation of Rs.30,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony and pain. The complainant has also sought Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. OPs have been contesting the case and filed reply. OPs in the reply submitted that the complainant purchased one Sony Xperia Z3+/E6553 having IMEI no. 359057061436785 for Rs.55,900/- on 01.01.2016 from OP-1 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions alongwith detailed explanation of all the warrantee terms & conditions of the mobile handset and OP-1 provides a limited warrantee of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lien in accordance with the terms & conditions of the warrantee provided and the relevant terms of warrantee provided by OP-1 to the complainant is as follows: “subject to the conditions of this limited warrantee, Sony warrants this products to be free from defects in design, material and workmanship at the time of original purchase by a consumer, and for a subsequent period of one (1) year, which is the warrantee period.”….. “If, during the warrantee period this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship, the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or
CC No. 756/2016 Page3 of 7
replace the product in accordance with the conditions stipulated herein.” Furthermore clause 3 of the terms of warrantee provided by OP-1 to the complainant clearly states the following: “this warrantee does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal and customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product. Nor does this warrantee cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid.” OPs further submitted that the complainant approached OP-2 on 29.04.2016 raising an issue of ‘Spot show on display’ and OP-2 without any delay immediately inspected the mobile handset and after the necessary inspection OP-2 replaced the audio jack + display frame ASSY copper + Top flex module and further submitted that nothing was charged from the complainant for carrying out the said replacement of part and everything was done absolutely free of cost and the mobile handset was delivered back to the complainant in a working condition. OPs further submitted that when the mobile handset was brought to OP-2 in a scratchy condition and the same can be easily seen the photographs taken at the time of inspection and the complainant approached OP-2 after satisfactory using the mobile handset for almost 4 months which means there was no
CC No. 756/2016 Page4 of 7
inherent defect in the mobile handset and further submitted that the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and there is no cause of action against to OPs.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the version of the OPs and re-affirmed his case which has been taken in the complaint.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. 6006 of Rs.56,900/- dated 01.01.2016 and copy of service job sheet ticket no. 16042903334 dated 29.04.2016.
6. On the other hand on behalf of OPs Ms. Meena Bose, authorized by OPs filed her affidavit in evidence and denied the case of the complainant. OPs have also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. It is not expected that the complainant will cause any physical damage to his new and costly mobile handset. It seems that OPs have taken a false and general defence. The job sheet dated 29.04.2016 clearly shows that defence of OPs
CC No. 756/2016 Page5 of 7
are false. The said job sheet bears ASC comments as “on display spot show and are not completed by the service centre.” OP-1 being the manufacturer is under a legal obligation to rectify the defect which has arisen in the handset immediately after its purchase. The OPs are under a legal and moral responsibility to sell such products in the market after their complete check-up. From the evidence led by the complainant it appears that the defect in the mobile phone has not been rectified and there was an inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Accordingly, OP-1is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
8. Accordingly, OP-1is directed as under:
i) To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.56,900/- being the price of mobile handset on return of the mobile phone and all the accessories and bill by the complainant.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
9. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1to the complainant within 30 days from the date receiving this order failing which all OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving this order till the date of
CC No. 756/2016 Page6 of 7
payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 14th day of September, 2018.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K.GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MENBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 756/2016 Page7 of 7
