BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 456 of 2015
Date of Institution: 27.7.2015
Date of Decision: 17.5.2016
Davinderpal Singh aged 26 years, son of S. Harjit Singh resident of H.No. 2135, Punjab Roadways Colony, Islamabad, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Sony Mobile Communication, C/o Sony India Limited, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, new Delhi 110044 through its Principal Officer
- Shivani Electronics, 6, Kamal Tower, Near Kamal Palace, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Manager/Principal Officer
- Jai Shankar Telecom, Shop No. 26, Parkash Plaza, Near New Star Hotel, Landa Bazar, Amritsar through its Proprietor
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11/12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant :In person
For the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2:Sh.Parkashdeep KaurAdvocate
For the Opposite Party No.3 : Sh.V.K.Sehgal,Adv.
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Davinderpal Singh ,complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased one mobile handset of Sony Xperia Z-3 Compact having IMEI No.355189060437037 for Rs. 42000/- from opposite party No.3 against bill No. 30928 dated 28.11.2014 on their assurance that the same was of genuine quality and will not give any problem during its use. Opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the mobile while opposite party No.2 is the service centre of opposite party No.1. The complainant being consumer qua the opposite parties for due consideration and as such he is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. After sometime of the purchase of the mobile, the mobile was not working properly and it started giving problem of restarting , phone auto off and front open. The complainant visited opposite party No.2, who took the mobile phone with them vide job sheet No.W115042304722 dated 23.4.2015 while the mobile handset was within warranty. Opposite party No.2 handed over the mobile handset to the complainant for removing the abovesaid defects. However, after that the complainant visited opposite party No.2 and told the complainant that some parts are to be replaced, for which the complainant has to pay Rs. 19200/- . The complainant paid that amount in good faith against receipt dated 11.5.2015 though it was issued for Rs. 19,195.35 paise. The complainant was asked to take the delivery of the phone after few days. Thereafter complainant was handed over the mobile phone on the pretext that parts have been changed and the mobile phone was working properly. But,however, after a week’s time, the mobile phone again started giving same problem . The mobile hand set was again deposited by the complainant with opposite party No.2 against job sheet No. W115062904594 dated 29.6.2015. Later on the mobile handset was again handed over to the complainant by the opposite party on 11.7.2015 on the pretext that the defect has been removed and the mobile handset was working properly. But again it started giving earlier problem. It was again deposited by the complainant with opposite party No.2 on 20.7.2015 against job sheet No. W115072004975. Opposite party assured that they will return the mobile hand set back to the complainant after removing the said defect in it but till date they have failed to remove the defect and are having mobile set with them. It seems that the phone was having some manufacturing defect and it seems that a defective mobile hand set was sold to the complainant for which the complainant has spent a huge amount of Rs. 42000/- besides Rs. 19200/- at the time when he was asked to pay the said amount for repair of the mobile phone in dispute. The mobile phone in dispute is still within warranty period and the opposite parties are liable to repair or replace the same. The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
(i) That the opposite parties be directed to immediately replace the aforesaid mobile phone of the complainant with new one of same model having no inherent and manufacturing defect in it or to refund the amount of Rs. 42000/- as sale price of said mobile and Rs. 19200/- taken by opposite parties as detailed above, total Rs. 61200/- with interest @ 24% per annum ;
(ii) That the opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental pain, agony , harassment and inconvenience and financial losses suffered by him .
(iii) That the complainant may be awarded Rs. 11000/- as litigation expenses .
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 , 2 & 3 appeared and filed collective written statement contesting the claim of the complainant taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is absolutely frivolous and devoid of any cause of action and should be dismissed as an abuse of the process of the court ; that opposite party No.1 is a company of international repute and sells world class products across the globe. The products of the opposite partyNo.1 are not just best sellers in India but also several other countries. Due to the quality of the products of opposite party No.1, it enjoys an excellent market reputation ; that it is settled position of law that whenever a party alleges any manufacturing defect, the same has to be proved with an expert report or opinion. It is pertinent that except the allegations of the complainant, no other cogent or convincing evidence has been produced. The complainant has not submitted any expert report or opinion as required under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act ; that though the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation the same cannot be used as a mechanism to arm twist companies to agree to the unreasonable demands of the consumers like the complainant in the present case. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of visiting card Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 28.11.2014 Ex.C-3, copy of service job sheet dated 23.4.2015 Ex.C-4, copy of CST invoice Ex.C-5, copy of service job sheet dated 20.7.2015 Ex.C-6, copy of service job sheet dated 29.6.2015 Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Mrs. Parkashdeep Kaur,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Priyank Chauhan, Officer Ex.OPW-1 , copy of resolution Ex.OP1/2, copy of letter dated 8.9.2015 Ex.OP1/3, photographs Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/7, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP1/8, affidavit of Sh.Gurwinder Singh,Service Engineer,opposite party No.2 Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2.
5. On the other hand Sh.V.K.Sehgal,Adv.cousnel for opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Kamaljit Arora, Prop.Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3.
6. We have heard the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
7. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased mobile handset in dispute vide bill No.30928 dated 28.11.2014 copy whereof is Ex.C-3 on record. It is also proved on record that mobile handset suffered from defects like restarting problem, phone auto off and front open. The complainant visited opposite party No.2 , who took the mobile handset vide job sheet No. W115042304722 dated 23.4.2015, copy whereof is Ex.C-4. Although the mobile handset was handed over to the complainant after alleged repairs, Yet, however, it was suffering from previous defects , which were already there in the mobile handset. The opposite party No.2 told the complainant that certain parts are required to be replaced and for that he should pay Rs. 19200/-. The complainant paid the said amount in good faith vide receipt dated 11.5.2015, copy whereof is Ex.C-5. Even after the alleged repairs, the phone did not work properly. The complainant had to deposit the mobile handset again on 29.6.2015 vide job sheet No. W115062904594 , copy whereof is Ex.C-7. The mobile handset was handed over to the complainant on 11.7.2015 on the pretext that the defect has been removed and the mobile handset was working properly. However, on 20.7.2015 the complainant had to redeposit the mobile handset in dispute suffering from the earlier problems against job sheet No.W115072004975, copy whereof is Ex.C-6 and since then the mobile handset was lying deposited with opposite party No.2, it has failed to set right the mobile handset nor they have even replaced the mobile handset or returned the amount of Rs. 42000/- i.e. sale price thereof to the complainant.
8. The very fact that the mobile set has been suffering from problems like restarting, phone auto off and front open and those have not been removed so far , clearly shows that the mobile handset was suffering from manufacturing problems. Not only that on the insistence of opposite party No.2, the complainant had to deposit Rs. 19200/- for replacing certain parts of the mobile handset for removing these defects. Even then the defects persisted and the mobile handset is lying with opposite party No.2 since 20.7.2015.. During the pendency of this complaint, Sony Authorized Service centre vide letter dated 28.1.2016 have intimated the complainant to get the mobile handset bearing IMEI No.355189062669140 as the same has been repaired satisfactorily. But, however, said mobile handset does not correspond to the mobile handset of the complainant which bears IMEI No.355189060437037 . It further fortifies the case of the complainant that mobile handset belonging to the complainant was beyond the scope of repairs and it was suffering from manufacturing defects. Thus the case of the complainant for refund of the price of the mobile handset in dispute has been made out.
9. Consequently, the opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the mobile handset in dispute to the tune of Rs. 42000/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of passing of this order until full and final recovery. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the orders 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 : 17.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
