Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1423/2015

Navdeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony Mobile Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amandeep Singh

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 1423                                                                                               

                                                                    Instituted on:  02.11.2015

                                                                    Decided on:    19.08.2016

 

Navdeep Kaur daughter of  Jaswinder Singh resident of Sunder Basti, Gali No.6. Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1.       Sony Mobile Communication India Ltd. 4th Floor, House  No.17/18, WEA, Karol Bagh New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.       Chhabra Communication, Opposite Bus Stand, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner.

3.       Sankalp Electronics ( Sony Mobile Authorized Service Station) Near Nankiana Chowk, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Amandeep Singh, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&2:   Shri G.S.Toor, Advocate.

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY NO.3         :   Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate                 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Navdeep Kaur complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she purchased a Sony Mobile bearing model no. E-4G  from the OP No.2 for Rs.12500/- vide bill  number 1554 dated 27.05.2015 under one year warranty. On 20.06.2015  the said mobile set became totally dead for which the complainant approached OP No.3 who repaired the same. Again on 08.07.2015 the set was become totally dead and OP No.3 again repaired the same and replaced the PCB and SW refurbished .  After that the mobile set in question again became unfunctional for which the OP No.3 was approached but OP No.3 told that the defect  is not curable/repairable then the complainant requested the OPs to replace the same because it was within the warranty period.   The Ops did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund  the purchase price of the said mobile set i.e. Rs.12,500/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were sent to the OPs  and after notice,  OP No.2 has appeared through Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate  but despite taking three opportunities for filing the written reply on behalf of the OP no.2, learned counsel for the OP No.2 did not file any written reply  and ultimately on 10.03.2016 , opportunity to file the written reply on behalf of the OP no.2 was closed by order of the Forum.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs no. 1 and 3, preliminary objections on the grounds that OP No.1 provides  a limited warranty of one year on its product from the time of its original purchase and liability lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it. As per relevant terms of warranty " if during the warranty period  this product fails to operate under normal use and service, due to defects in materials or workmanship, the Sony authorized distributors or service partners will, at their option either repair or replace  the product in accordance with the conditions".  Further the warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal  and customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance. The complainant approached the OP No.3 on  8/7/2015 raising issues of charging  and battery. However upon inspection it was observed that board of the handset  required to be replaced. The OPs carried out  necessary replacement of parts and handset was delivered  back to the complainant in a proper working condition. It has been further stated that the complainant never  approached OPs after the issue was resolved. This clearly reflects  that the handset was being satisfactorily used by the complainant after necessary replacement was done. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.1&3.

4.             In his evidence, the complainant has produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no. 1&3 has tendered Ex.OPs1&2/1 alongwith  annexure R-1  to R-6  and closed evidence. An opportunity  for producing the documentary evidence  was also granted to the OP no.2 but OP no.2 did not produce any evidence and  on 29.07.2016 evidence of the OP No.2 was closed by order of the Forum.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had purchased  Sony mobile phone bearing model No. E-4G I from OP No.2  on 27.05.2015 for an amount of Rs.12,500/- under warranty of one year which is evident from the retail invoice number 1554 dated 27.05.2015 which is Ex.C-3 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in her complaint that on 20.06.2015 the set in question became totally dead  and OP No.3  repaired the same. Again on 08.06.2015  the same problem persisted on complaint of which  OP No.3 replaced the PCB and SW refurbished. But again the problem persisted and  this time the OP No.3  told that the defect is not curable/ repairable. In support of her version the complainant has produced on record copies of job sheets issued by the OP No.2 which are Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 on record. Against the version the complainant, it is an admitted case of the OPs no.1&3 that on 20.06.2015   complainant approached the OP no.3  with complaint of defective mobile set  but handset in question was returned to the complainant as she was not ready to repair the same and again on 08.07.2015  the complainant  approached OP no.3  with a complaint of  charging  and battery and  this time  OP carried out necessary repair by replacing the parts  and handset was delivered to the complainant in a proper  working condition. But, surprisingly the OPs have not produced on record any document/ voucher which shows that the mobile set in question was repaired  and returned to the complainant to her entire satisfaction rather the OPs themselves admitted that  no records of any kind of repair action or replacement  is available with the Ops. Moreover, it is not the case of the Ops that defects in the mobile set were due to mishandling of the complainant.

6.             Another aspect of the case is that the Ops no.1&3 have admitted that the complainant  approached the OP no.3 on 20.06.2015 but she was not ready to get the mobile set repaired and handset was returned to her unrepaired  but on the other hand, OPs no.1&3 have stated that again on 08.07.2015 she approached the OP no.3 and mobile set in question was repaired by replacing some parts. We feel that the  Ops no.1&3 have taken two contradictory stands in the written reply.

7.             The OP no.2 neither filed  any written reply to contest the case of the complainant nor  produce any evidence. In our opinion, it is also the duty of the OP no.2 from whom the set in dispute was purchased to take  appropriate step to redress the grievance of the complainant but the OP no.2 has  totally failed to do so. As such, the evidence produced by the complainant against it has gone unrebutted.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that the mobile set  in question created problems to the complainant repeatedly within the warranty period which could not be removed by the OPs meaning thereby there is manufacturing defect in it.  In this manner,  the OPs are deficient in service and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same model or in the alternative refund an amount of Rs.12500/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant subject to return of the defective mobile set in question along with all accessories of it or in the . We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                  

              Announced

                August 19, 2016

 

 

 

 

        ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                             

           Member             Member                  President

 

 

BBS/-