Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/744

RITU GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

 

CASE NO.  744/2016

MS. RITU GOYAL

ADD- 28/142, WEST PATEL NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110008.                                                        …..Complainant

VERSUS

SONY INDIA LIMITED.

ADD- A-31, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

MATHURA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110044.…..Opposite Party-1

 

SERVICE POINT

OFFICE NO. 308, 3^RD FLOOR,

DDA BUILDING NO. 5,

DISTRICT CENTRE, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI-110058.…..Opposite Party-2

 

TIMES INTERNET LIMITED

ADD-10, DARYAGANJ,

NEW DELHI-110002.…..Opposite Party-3 (Dropped)

 

 

O R D E R

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

Ms. Ritu Goyal above named complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly the facts as stated by the complainant for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased handset of make and model Sony Xperia C4 from OP-3 for a sum of Rs. 25,900/- on 24.06.2015 with one year warranty. It is alleged that the handset had developed certain faults with issues as overheating, sensor failure and charger failure etc. and the complainant visited OP-2 authorized service centre of OP-1 and same was repaired by OP-1 but again on 15.06.2016 same issues aroused and complainant again approached OP-2 whereby the handset was kept by OP-2 for repairs and to told to collect after 3-4 days. When the complainant visited to collect the handset it was informed by OP-2 that the spare parts are not available and offered another handset of model Sony Xperia Z5 which was not acceptable to the complainant but OP-2 forced the complainant to accept the new handset which also developed similar faults. But despite repeated requests to redress the grievance of the complainant OP-2 failed. Hence, the present complaint for directions to the OPs to replace the mobile handset and pay a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- on account of mental, agony, physical harassment, valuable time, litigation charges and deficiency in services, unfair trade practices, committing cheating and playing fraud upon the complainant.

After notice reply filed by OP-3 and right of OP-1 & OP-2 to file reply was struck off vide order dated 27.02.2017.

OP-3 contested the complaint by taking the preliminarily objections that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty the complainant failed to adhere to the terms of the warranty and there is no cause of action against OP-3. It is asserted that the OP-3 is only an intermediary and there is no privity of contract between OP-3 and complainant and there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and on merits denied the allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder filed by complainant reaffirming the facts stated in the complaint and controverting the stand taken by OP-3. When the parties were asked to file affidavit of evidence, complainant filed affidavit of evidence testifying the contents of the complaint on oath and relied on copy of invoice dated 24.06.2015, copy of legal notice dated 06.07.2016, reply of legal notice by OP dated 21.07.2016. OP-3 also filed affidavit of evidence Sh. Saurabh Malik, Business Head retreating the facts stated in reply and rebutted the allegations of the complaint and relied on Annexure OPD-1 to OPD-4.

Vide order dated 25.05.2018 OP-3 is deleted from the array of the parties on request of the complainant.

We have heard counsel for parties. Written arguments are also filed by the parties and we have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The case of the complainant lies in the narrow campus that the handset even after replacement is not working satisfactorily and had issues with heating problem etc. From the perusal of letter dated 21.07.2016 written by OP-1 to the complainant it is clear that the complainant was advised to visit service centre for getting resolve the issue pertaining to the exchanged handset but there is nothing on record which shows that the complainant had visited the service centre though the complainant took the plea that she had visited the service centre and they had updated the software but the issue was never resolved by the OPs. However, she is unable to show any iota of evidence supporting her version. Hence, there seems no deficiency on the part of the OPs. The complainant has failed to corroborate her version with any kind of communication which supports her version. The result is, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

File be consigned to Record Room.

          Copy of Order be given as per rules.

          Announced this _______02ND____April, 2019.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                               (K.S. MOHI)

     MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT