DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.139 of 16
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 08-07.2016
DATE OF ORDER: 06-02-2017
Manoj Kumar son of Shri Ghanshyam Dass, resident of Halu Bazar, Ghosiyan Gali, Old Anaj Mandi, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, through his brother Yogesh Kumar son of Sh. Ghanshyam Dass.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Sony India, through its authorized representative, registered office at A-31, Mohan, Co-operative Industrial State, Mathu, New Delhi-110044.
- Unicomp System, through its authorized representative, City Mall, Shop No. 6, Ground Floor, Near Hansi Gate, Near Aadarsh College, Bhiwani.
- Appsdaily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized representative, Shop No. 18, 1st Floor, Halwasia Mall, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.
- Jeenu Gift Shop, 51, Adarsh College Market, Bhiwani, through its authorized representative.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Present:- Complainant in person.
Sh. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate for OP no. 1, 2 and 4.
None for OP no. 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 20.07.2015 he had purchased a Sony Xperia C4 Mobile Set of Sony Company from OP no. 1 vide bill no. 3516 dated 20.07.2015 for a sum of Rs. 24,000/- with one year warranty. It is alleged that just after the purchasing of aforesaid mobile set got insured the same from OP no. 3 from 20.07.2015 to 19.07.2016. It is alleged that in the month of April 2016 the complainant started to face some problems in the mobile set. It is alleged that he visited in the service centre of OP no. 2 and requested him to repair the same as the same was within warranty period. Upon this, OP no. 2 told to complainant that to update the mobile set and all problems would be resolved. It is alleged that he updated the software of mobile set but he was facing the same problems. It is alleged that on dated 09.05.2016 he visited in the service centre of OP no. 2 and requested him to repair the same as the same was within warranty. It is alleged that on dated 20.05.2016, he was out of station and he was met with an accident & due to this the mobile set fell in water and due to this there was problem of speaker and touch in the mobile set. It is alleged that the mobile set was within insurance period and the insurance company i.e. OP no. 3 is bound to indemnify the complainant on account of loss due to liquid according to terms and conditions of insurance policy, so the complainant got deposited the mobile set with the OP no. 3 on 25.05.2016 & OP no. 3 issued a job sheet. It is alleged that the OP no. 3 was refused to indemnify the claim of the complainant in respect of aforesaid mobile set. It is alleged that the OP no. 2 as well as OP no. 3 delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony and physical harassment etc.. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance OPs no. 1, 2 & 4 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant approached the answering Ops only twice. It is submitted that the answering Ops have provided best and stellar services to the Ops. It is submitted that both the times the complainant approached the answering Ops, software upgrade was done to the subject handset. It is submitted that the complainant has already accepted the terms and conditions of warranty at the time of purchase of the handset. It is submitted that the sole discretion regarding refund/replacement/repair lies only with OP no. 1, but in the present case, there lies no cause of action against the answering Ops. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the parties.
5. The complainant in person reiterated the contents of his complaint. He submitted that the mobile handset in question was purchased by him vide bill dated 20.07.2015 for a sum of Rs. 24,000/- from OP no. 4 with one year warranty. The complainant got insured the said mobile handset with OP no. 3 for the period from 20.07.2015 to 19.07.2016. He submitted that on 20.05.2016 his mobile handset fallen into the water and there was some problem in the mobile handset. He deposited his mobile handset with OP no. 3 on 25.05.2016 and the OP no. 3 issued job sheet Annexure C-5 to the complainant. He submitted that the mobile handset was in the warranty and was also covered with the insurance issued by OP no. 3 and the OP no. 3 is liable to pay the cost of the mobile handset to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
6. We have perused the relevant material on record. The complainant had used the mobile handset in question almost 10 months. The OP no. 3 appeared in this case but did not file any reply to the complaint despite availing a number of opportunities and he is not appearing in this case for the last several hearings. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against OP no. 3. We direct the OP no. 3 to pay 80 per cent insured amount after deducting the 20 per cent on account of depreciation for the use of the mobile handset. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:.06-02-2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member
