Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/237/2015

Nitesh Panjeta Alias Rommy Panjeta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jai Pal Singh

08 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 237 of 2015.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 15.07.2015.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 08.04.2016.

Nitesh Panjeta alias Rommy Panjeta son of Shri Subey Singh, resident of Village Kathwala, P.O. Mehlanwali, Tehsil Jagadhri, now resident of near Saraswati Secondary School, Bilaspur, District, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                              

                                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Sony India Private Limited, A-31, Mohan Co Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi 110044. 
2. Sony Care Center Kamla Nagar, Chhoti Line, Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager.
3. Mahendiratta Communication, # 68-A Model Town, Mela Singh Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor.

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Jai Pal Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Sanjeev Singhal, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

              OP No.3 already ex-parte.  

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Nitesh Panjeta  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile set Sony make Xperia C-5302 vide bill No. 45 dated 23.7.2014 for a sum of Rs. 16990/- from Op No.3 i.e. dealer and manufactured by Op No.1 i.e. M/s Sony India Private Ltd. whose service centre is OP No.2 i.e. Sony Care Centre. The complainant continued to use the aforesaid mobile phone after its purchase. However, its camera was not used earlier but recently in May 2015, the complainant when used the camera of the phone it was found that the picture captured by the camera was blurred and not clear. One or two pictures which were taken just after the purchase of the mobile set and the pictures taken recently show that the quality of the picture is the same as before and the pictures taken at both the times are not clear enough looking the fact that it is a camera of 8 mega pixel. The complainant went to OP No.2 i.e. Service Centre of Op No.1 in the second week of June, 2015 and told the problem in camera of the mobile set and Op No.2 told that the problem of camera is not covered under the warranty and refused to do anything in the matter. The complainant had purchased the mobile set by paying huge amount but the complainant could not enjoy the full services of the phone as its camera did not work properly from the very beginning. As such, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony harassment and economic loss due to negligent and callous attitude of the OPs. Lastly prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and economic loss and further to refund the price of the mobile set alongwith interest besides this litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared on 8.9.2015 and failed to file written statement despite so many opportunities, hence, their defence was struck off vide order dated 11.12.2015. OP No.3 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 8.9.2015.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of Bill bearing No. 45 dated 23.7.2014 as Annexure C-1 and copy of job sheet dated 10.6.2015 as Annexure C-2 an closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile set make Sony Xperia C-5302 vide Bill No. 45 dated 23.7.2014 for a sum of Rs. 16990/- from OP No.3 manufactured by OP No.1, whose service centre is OP No.2, which is evident from copy of bill Annexure C-1.

7.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that when in May 2015, the complainant used the camera of the phone, it was found that the picture captured by the camera was blurred and not clear. One or two pictures which were taken just after the purchase of phone and the picture taken recently show that the quality of pictures is the same as before and the pictures taken at both the times are not clear enough looking the fact that it is a camera of 8 Mega Pixel.  When the complainant approached the OP No.2 i.e. Service Centre of Op No.1 and told the problem in the camera of the mobile set in June 2015, then the officials of Op No.2 told that problem of camera is not covered under the warranty and refused to do anything in this matter. The version of the complainant is self-contradictory as the complainant himself has admitted in para No.2 that after purchasing the mobile set in question on 23.7.2014 he continued to use the aforesaid mobile phone but not used its camera whereas in para No.3 he has admitted that one or two pictures which were taken just after the purchase of the phone and the pictures taken recently show the quality of pictures is the same as before and the pictures taken at both the times are not clear enough looking to the fact that it is a camera of 8 mega pixel. Meaning thereby that, the version of the complainant that he did not enjoy the facility of camera since its purchase is not tenable. When the picture was taken just after the purchase of phone then why the complainant kept mum for a period of more than11 months as the present complaint has been filed on 15.7.2015 just before 8 days from the expiry of one year from its purchase i.e. on 23.7.2014. Further, the complainant has also failed to convince this Forum that camera in question was also under warranty as no warranty card has been filed by the complainant. Even no endorsement has been made on the bill itself (Annexure C-1).

8.                     We have also perused the job sheet Annexure C-2 filed by the complainant which is of the date of 10.6.2015, from which it is clear that there were scratches on the rear camera glass. It is not the case of the complainant that mobile set in question was having any manufacturing defect or was not working properly.

 9.                    In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case. Though in the present complaint, the OPs have neither filed written statement nor defended the case but it does not give any right to the complainant to take the benefit of this, as it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on its own legs, without taking the weakness of the opposite parties.

10.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 08.04.2016.

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER