Haryana

Ambala

CC/299/2014

SUKSHAM AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY MOBILE. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No.      : 299 of 2014

Date of Institution         : 31.10.2014

Date of Decision            :  05.06.2015

Suksham Aggarwal D/o Shri Pawan Aggarwal R/o H.No.1408/6, Talkies Road, Ambala City.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ……Complainant.

                                                                                    Versus

1.       Malik Electronics, Chowk Kotwali Bazar, Ambala City, Haryana.

2.       Modern AKM Electronics Pvt. Limited, SCO 126-127, F.F., Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022.

3.       Ambey Electronics Service, DS-14,F.F., Jail Land, Sector-1, HUDA Market, Ambala-Haryana through its owner.

4.       Sony India, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.                                               

……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.                                     

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Ops exparte.

ORDER.

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia Z1 Mobile phone bearing IMEI No.35809450972093 vide bill No.18400 dated 13.11.2013 in a sum of Rs.42500/-  from Op No.1 and after 10-15 days, the said mobile phone started giving problems of ‘camera & continuous hanging problem’. So, the complainant visited the OP No.2 who checked the mobile phone and told that the handset was having just software problem and the same has been updated.   It has been further alleged that after 2/3 days, the mobile set again occurred problems of network, cell disconnection frequently & speaker problem. Therefore, the complainant again approached the OP No.2 on 02.01.2014 and she was compelled to come on 07.01.2014.  On that day, the Op admitted all the defects in the mobile set and she was handed over a new mobile set bearing IMEI No.358094052915304 and assured that the new mobile set will work properly and  the remaining period of warranty of the old mobile set will be available with the replaced set.  It has been further alleged by the complainant that after one month, the new mobile set also created the same problems as were in the old mobile set.  Besides it, the handset used to heat up badly while put on charging and used to stop functioning when removed.  As such, again the complainant approached the OP No.3 i.e. Service Centre of OP Company on 02.09.2014 and job Sheet Annexure C-2 was issued to her but the defect could not be removed.  Thus the complainant has prayed that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                Upon notice,  all the Op’s were duly served for  07.01.2015  through  Regd. Post summons and Sh. Manoj Kumar,  ASC Mobile Engineer as authorized representative  on behalf of OP No.4-company appeared vide authority letter dated 06.01.2015 but on that day quorum was not complete.  Thereafter fresh notices were again issued to all the OP’s through Regd. Post but none bothered to appear and as such, Ops No.1 to 4 were proceeded against exparte  vide order dated 01.05.2015.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the complainant  and gone through the case file very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant is that she purchased the mobile set in question from the OP No.1 on 13.11.2013 in a sum of Rs.42,500/- and after sometime, the mobile phone started creating problems of ‘networking, cell disconnection frequently & speaker problem etc., but the said problems could not be rectified by the OP No.2 despite various visits to the service centre of the OP-company and on 07.01.2014, the OP No.2 replaced the mobile set with new handset admitting various defects in it.  But after one month, the replaced mobile set also created problem of ‘heat up’ and on making complaint, the Op No.3 updated the software of the new mobile set but the said mobile set did not work properly rather on attaching the hand set with charger, it heated so badly causing crackage in the touch screen as well as in the mobile set and became useless.  The complainant has further relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1)CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007(1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as Head, Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and others wherein it is held  that inspite of repair of mobile set,  it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of the cost of mobile was ordered.

5.                After hearing  the complainant and going through the record, it is crystal clear from document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question was sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant on 13.11.2013.  It is also not disputed that the mobile set is having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and it became defective during  the warranty period as revealed from document Annexure C-2 job sheet dated 02.09.2014 wherein problem of Hanging, Heating & others have been shown whereas on the other hand, the contention of complainant  remained unrebutted as the Ops did not bother to contest the matter despite their service.                                             

                   So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that even the replaced mobile set given to the complainant by the Ops was also having some inherent defect from its very beginning and the same could not be rectified by the Ops despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre at Chandigarh & Ambala.  Hence, it is a clear cut case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by OPs No.2,3&4 with the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is accepted and OPs No.2,3 & 4 are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of order:-

1. To return to the complainant, the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.42,500/- alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date its purchase till its realization.
2. Also to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment & litigation costs etc.

 

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs  No.2, 3 & 4within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced:          05/06/2015                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                   (A.K. SARDANA)

                  PRESIDENT       

 

                              

                                                                                                 Sd/-

            (ANIL SHARMA)

                                                                                       MEMBER