O R D E R
SHAHINA, Member
The complainant has filed present complaint against O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant purchased a Sony mobile handset from the retail market (SONY XPERIA Z1) having IMEI No.35809405-166194-1 from the retail market of Karol Bagh on 18.1.2014 for a sum of Rs.34,700/-. It is alleged that the phone bought had 6 months accidental insurance and 1year warranty. It is alleged that the phone was having problems with its working, its camera and software. It is alleged that the camera of the phone was not at all good and company made tall claims about its camera and software. It is alleged that when the complainant approached the service centre it came to know that if any mishappening or accident occurs in future when insurance period expires then he had to pay 50% amount of the phone i.e. Rs.20,000/- which was really shocking for him as this phone cannot be opened or repaired. It is alleged that the OPs have some hidden policies and conditions about which they do not tell the innocent customers at the time of sale and he believing the goodwill of the OPs trusted them and bought their expensive products and have to suffer by the after sales services, false promises and unacceptable terms made by the OPs. It is alleged that the said mobile phone is with the service centre and complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.34,700/- which was the cost of mobile phone alongwith 18% interest and Rs.10,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony and cost of litigation.
2. OPs appeared and filed their written statement. In its written statement OPs have pleaded that the OPs have provided after sales services which are free of costs to the complainant. It has been pleaded that the complainant has not come forward to collect his handset from the OPs. It has been pleaded that the complaint has no cause of action as the repair action has already been taken and the OPs have performed their job on the handset. It has been also pleaded that OPs cannot be held liable if the complainant does not come forward to collect his handset. It has been pleaded that there is no manufacturing defect in the handset. It has also been pleaded that the mobile handset has been duly repaired and that too free of cost at the expenses of the OPs absolutely as a gesture of good will but the complainant has refused to take the delivery of the same. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence reiterating all the facts made in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. Priyank Chauhan, Authorised Representative of OPs has filed evidences in support of its case.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of the complainant. The complainant has not placed on record any expert report regarding the manufacturing defect in the product sold to him by the OPs. Especially when the OPs denied the existence of manufacturing defect, the onus to prove the same shifted on the complainant. No cogent and conclusive evidence has been brought on record by the complainant.
5. In view of facts and circumstance, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs, as OPs had repaired the mobile handset of the complainant. Therefore, the OPs are directed to handover the repaired handset in working order within 30 days from the date of order to the complainant. The complaint is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs etc.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 30th day of April, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
