Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/480

PRIYANKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                   Date of institution: 19.07.2016

Complaint Case. No.480/16                                                     Date of order: 26.04.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Priyanka Agarwal, House No. 669, Main Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Complainant

VERSUS

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, DDA-5 Building, District Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058                                                                                                                      Opposite party no. 1

Sony India Registered office North, A-31  Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044                                                                                               Opposite party no. 2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT 

               Brief relevant facts as stated by Priyanka Agarwal herein after refereed as the  complainant are that she purchased one mobile handset of make and model “Sony Xperia C-4” from Star Mobitel Ltd. for sale consideration Rs.24000/-on 22.08.2015. The mobile handset developed fault within 4 hours of the purchase. She approached Star Mobitel Ltd. immediately. Who advised her to deposit the mobile handset with authorized service center of the opposite party no.2. She deposited the handset on 24.08.2015 with authorized service center. They repaired the handset and returned to the complainant. But again the same fault developed. She deposited the handset with Janakpuri service center on 31.08.2015. The handset was returned to her on 01.09.2015 without repair giving false assurance that the mobile handset has been updated. The mobile handset soon got hanged, therefore, she had to visit service center twice i.e. on 6^th and 12^th September 2015..The complainant several times deposited the handset for repairs with authorized service center. But the mobile handset had manufacturing defect. Therefore, it could not be repaired. However after lot of persuasion the complainant was given swapped mobile handset with IMEI NO. 352196070373063 on 27.10.2015. But the swapped mobile handset also developed fault. The complainant informed opposite party no.2 through email about the fault on 01.11.2015. The complainant deposited the handset with opposite party no.1 on 07.11.2015. The opposite parties again offered for replacement of the handset. But the complainant refused and requested the opposite parties to refund cost of the mobile handset. But to no effect. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite party no.1to refund Rs.24,000/- the cost of mobile handset and Rs.54,90/- discount given on the mobile handset, Rs.4,000/- for the accessories, Rs.12,99/- on account of insurance policy and Rs.75,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment etc.

               Notices of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties. But despite service none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.09.2016.

               When the complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit he tendered in evidence his affidavit dated 24.11.2016 narrating the facts of the complaint.  He relied upon copy of invoice dated 22.08.2015, copies of job sheets, copy of letter dated 03.03.2016, copy of retail invoice dated 17.07.2015 and copy of medical report and salary slip.

               We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

               The version, affidavit of the complainant and documents produced remained unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged version and evidence of the complainant. The complainant from the affidavit and documents has been able to show that he purchased one mobile handset of make and model “Sony Xperia C-4” from Star Mobitel Ltd. manufactured by opposite party no.2  for sale consideration Rs.24000/-on 22.08.2015. The mobile handset developed some fault within four hours of the purchase. The opposite parties failed to repair the handset. The complainant has suffered loss of the mobile handset. She is also deprived to use the mobile handset. Hence opposite parties no.1 and 2 are negligent and there is deficiency in service on their part. The opposite party no.1 is authorized service center of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has adopted unfair trade practice.  Therefore, opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of mobile handset and pay compensation.

               In view of above discussion and observations we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.24,000/- cost of mobile handset with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization of the amount and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses.

Order pronounced on : 26.04.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                      (R.S.  BAGRI)                            MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT