Delhi

East Delhi

CC/217/2015

MO.DANISH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         217 /2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 27/03/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                16/11 /2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         17/11 /2016  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Mohd Danish, adult   

S/o- Sh. Mohd Suleman 

R/o-4939, D-23, East Seelampur

Delhi 110051       ….…………………………….……..…………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Manchanda Telecom   

F2/23, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051

 

2- M/s New  Mobile care India Pvt Ltd       

WZ 109, St I, Sadh Nagar,

Palam, New Delhi 110045

 

3- Sony India Pvt Ltd

Plot no. A31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area

Okhla Ps 1, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110020………………….……Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate……………………….Gyanesh Singh  

Opponent 1&2 ……………………………………..Nemo

Opponent 3…………………………………………..Shweta Kapoor & others – Advocates   

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant purchased a Sony mobile C1904, vide IMEI 35809605-025044-4 on dated 01/09/2013 from OP1 for a sum of Rs 10,969/- after discount given by OP1 marked here as CW1/1 with extended warranty. After very first day, mobile had problem of hanging and speakers not working, so on 03/11/2014, complainant submitted the said mobile to OP2 for repair. It was assured that the problem would be rectified within 5-7 days marked here as CW1/2. When complainant contacted OP2, was told to come after 15 days. Even after 90 days, the said mobile was not delivered by OP2. Harassed by the illegal activities of OP2, complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of cost of mobile Rs 12800/- with compensation of Rs 50,000/ for harassment and litigation charges Rs 15,000/-.

Notices were served. OP 3 submitted their written statement, but OP1 and 2 did not put their appearance or submitted written statement and evidences till arguments, so their stage was closed. OP3, denied all the allegations of complainant and admitted that the said allegations were totally wrong and false, so denied as OP3 were a well known world vide reputed company dealing in good quality goods in electronic. It was admitted that the said mobile was purchased by complainant from OP1, but complainant had no problem in one year of its purchase date 01/09/2013 and problem occurred after one year standard warranty of one year. The problems occurred on 03/11/2014 vide job card no. 5666 of OP2 which showed no defects and was not their/OP3’s authorized service centre. As the extended warranty was given by OP1, the complainant had taken his mobile to their authorized service station for rectifying problems. Hence, OP3 was not responsible for any compensation for deficiency in service. OP3 submitted terms and conditions for their product, marked here as Annexure A&B.

Complainant did not submit his rejoinder, but submitted his evidence on affidavit and OP3 also submitted evidences on affidavit, which were on record.            

 

Arguments were heard and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was admitted by OP3 that the said mobile had developed some problems while mobile was under extended warranty, and said mobile was not serviced by authorized service station. OP2 did not submit their written statement or evidence; hence, OP3 has no deficiency in any type of services or had any manufacturing defect.

As the extended warranty was extended by OP1 and also OP2 did not return the mobile after repairing, establishes deficiency in service by OP2.

Thus, we come to the conclusion that complainant could not establish any deficiency in services in OP3, so, OP3 has no liability.  

As far as OP1 is concerned, extended warranty beyond one year of standard warranty period was given, so the mobile was under warranty when problem occurred; and OP2 did not return the mobile after repair, amount deficiency on the part of OP2.

Thus, we come to the conclusion that this complaint be allowed and following order was passed.

Order-

1. OP2 is directed to get the said mobile repaired within 30 days from receiving of this order and hand over mobile in good working condition to complainant.
2. If OP2 fails to comply the order in stipulated time, then OP2 will pay the cost of the mobile with 6% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till realized.

 

1. There shall be no other award to order.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

Mrs Harpreet Kaur                                                                                  (Dr) P N Tiwari

Member                                                                                                     Member                                                                                    

                                                 Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                             President