BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 435 of 2015
Date of Institution: 14.07.2015
Date of Decision: 19.07.2016
Arinderbeer Singh (aged 24 years) son of Satwinder Singh Walia, resident of Gurnam Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- Sony India Registered Office A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, through its authorized signatory/ any other Principal Officer thereof.
- Shivani Electronics, Sony Service Centre, Near Kamal Palace, Batala Road, through its authorized signatory/ any other Principal Officer thereof.
- K.R.Electronics Distributor 42, Liberty Market, Railway Link Road, Amritsar through its through authorized signatory/ any other Principal Officer thereof.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11, 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.J.S.Jaswal, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Ajay Mehta, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Arinderbeer Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11, 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he is peace loving and law abiding citizen, having great respect towards law of nation and is resident of abovesaid address. The complainant purchased one mobile make Sony Xperia MR (White) bearing IEMI No. 352774062926047 for valuable consideration of Rs.21,000/- vide bill/ invoice No.711 dated 3.8.2014 duly issued by Opposite Party No.3 in favour of the complainant. While purchasing the Mobile Set in question, it was assured by Opposite Party No.3 that the warranty period of said mobile set is for one year from the date of its purchase i.e. uptil 2.8.2015. After using the Mobile Set in question, the complainant found that there is manufacturing defect in it and the same was giving problem in jack of Recharging Point and same does not properly charged the battery as charger point does not fix into the jack and due to all this same was not working properly. The complainant had been time and again approaching the Opposite Parties and made requests to cure the defect, but of no avail. The complainant had lodged various complaints with Opposite Party No.2, but till date no step has been taken by Opposite Parties to cure the defect, rather they are demanding Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- towards repair charges and the complainant had to run from pillar to post for redressal of his grievances but none of his request stood accede to by the Opposite Parties. The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
a) Opposite Parties may be directed to replace the Mobile Set in question with new one or to upgrade the Mobile Set in question and to hand over the same to the complainant.
b) Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for causing him mental harassment, agony and invenience.
c) Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses.
d) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled may also be granted in his favour.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties; the instant complaint is false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect and is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that as per the record of the company, the complainant had purchased a Sony Xperia M2, bearing model No.D2302 on 3.8.2014 after a detailed demonstration of the features, functions, applications by Opposite Party No.3 and after satisfying himself with the condition of the Mobile Set in question; that Opposite Party No.1 provides a warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. A copy of the warranty terms provided by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant is annexed; that the complainant after enjoining the Mobile Set in question admittedly, without any sort of defect phone for a period of almost 11 months approached the Authorised Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1 for the very first time on 22.7.2015 with the issue of ‘charging problem’ however, upon its physical inspection the ‘charging pins’ of the Mobile Set in question were found broken which was duly demonstrated to the complainant by showing its damaged charging slot; since the ‘charging pins’ of the Mobile Set in question had got damaged due to its rough and rugged use by the complainant, therefore, the complainant was provided with an estimate of Rs.7706/- (Approximately) to carry out the necessary repairs which was categorically refused by him for the reason best known to him. On merits, the facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for the dismissal of the complainant with costs was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant made in the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3 and postal receipt Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Priyank Chauhan Ex.OP1,2,3 /1, copy of letter Ex.OP1,2,3/2, copy of resolution Ex.OP1,2,3/3, copy of information Ex.OP1,2,3/4 and closed the evidence of the Opposite Parties,
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. From the appreciations of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased Mobile Set in question vide bill/ invoice dated 3.8.2014, copy whereof is Ex.C2. It is the case of the complainant that after some time of the purchase of Mobile Set in question, it started giving problems and the complainant approached Authorised Service Centre of Opposite Party No.3 for the removal of the defect of the Mobile Set in question. It is admitted facts that the charging slot of the Mobile Set in question has been damaged and an estimate of Rs.7706/- (Approximately) was handed over by Opposite Party No.3 to the complainant if he wanted to get the damaged part of the Mobile Set in question replaced. Since the Mobile Set in question was within warranty, warranty of 12months itself finds mentioned on the bill Ex.C2, therefore, the complainant wanted that Mobile Set in question to be repaired ‘free of costs’. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that the damage to the Mobile Set in question accrued due to the rough and rugged use by the complainant, but however, there is absolutely no expert evidence to substantiate the said fact. The Opposite Parties were required to produce some expert opinion to prove their view point, but they did not chose to do so. It is the case of the complainant that the Mobile Set in question is having manufacturing defect, is also without any substance. There is evidence on record that the complainant used the Mobile Set in question for 11 months approximately from the date of its purchase without any complaint, which further shows that the defect developed in the course of natural wear and tear of the gadget. In such a situation, the request of the complainant that the Mobile Set in question may be replaced or the price of Mobile Set in question be refunded, can not be allowed at this stage. But however, the complainant is definitely entitled to the repair of the mobile hand set in dispute as the same was within warranty period when the same was attained by opposite party No.3 for effecting repairs. The demand of opposite party No.3 for payment of Rs. 7706/- as repair charges, amount to deficiency in service.
7. Consequently, the Opposite Parties jointly, severally and ex-extensively are liable to repair the Mobile Set in question to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any money from the complainant and they are directed to repair the Mobile Set in question within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties shall be liable to refund the price of the Mobile Set in question i.e. Rs.21,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final realisation. The costs of litigation is assessed at Rs.1,000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 19.07.2016. hrg
