Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/91/2016

Mohammad Zia Mulla - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Sony Ltd Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S I adin

31 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 31 May 2017

Complaint No. 91/2016

 

Present:              1)      Shri.B.V.Gudli,                       President  

2)      Smt. Sunita,                           Member

-***-

 

Complainant/s:          Mohammad Zia s/o.Sayed Hussain Mulla,

Age: 25 years, Occ: Business,

R/o.Shahu Nagar, Belagavi.

 

(By Miss.S.I.Adin, Adv.)

 

V/s.

                                                                     

Opponent/s:      1.      The Managing Director,

Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

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

 

2.      The Proprietor,

Pawale Mobile Gallery,

CTS No.1729, Ramdev Galli, Belagavi.

 

                             3.      The Authorised Signatory,

                                      Vishnu Service Centre,

                                      Shop No.G2 & G3, Saraswathi Residency,

                                      CTS No.234, Ranade Road, Tilakwadi,

Belagavi.

 

(OP-1 to 3 by Sri.M.Ramesh, Adv.)

 

 

 (Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.P. alleging defects in the mobile hand set.

          2) Upon issuance of notice from the forum the O.Ps.1 to 3 appeared through their advocate and filed objections, affidavit and  produced some documents.

           3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit, written arguments and produced some documents.  

4) We have also heard on both side and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of O.Pa & entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is in negative for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7)       On perusal of allegations of the complainant and affidavit of complainant, complainant had purchased mobile hand set from OP.2. After purchasing the said mobile hand set, within a few months the complainant found that the said mobile hand set was giving frequent problems such as battery backup problem, hanging, often getting switched off, data loss, download problem. The complainant delivered the said mobile hand set to OP.3 who is service provider of OP.2. The complainant further states that, after handing over the mobile hand set the OP.3 repaired and handed over the mobile hand set to complainant. The complainant found that the said problems are still existing in the mobile hand set and further he approached OP.3 for 2^nd time complaining the said problems and handed over the mobile hand set to OP.3 once again for repairs in respect of which OP.3 issued job sheet under its No.116011100826 dt.11.01.2016. The OP.3 delivered back the mobile hand set to the complainant stating that, this time the repair work has been carried properly, but again the complainant found the said problems appearing in the mobile hand set as earlier even after the repair of mobile hand set by OP.3 two to three times. The complainant again approached the OP.3 & handed over the said mobile hand set for repairs and even after repairs by made the OP.3 two to three times the said problems are still existing in the  mobile hand set, as such the conduct on the part of OP.1 to 3 amounted to defects in manufacturing and deficiency of service.

          8)      On perusal of evidence affidavit and contents of objections, the OPs admit that the complainant had purchased Sony Experia E 2363 M4 Aqua mobile hand set bearing IMEI No.352198070683962 on 31.05.2015. It is stated that the complainant approached the service center of OP on 11.01.2016 with an issue of hanging and battery low backup, download problem. On inspection and analysis of the said product the engineers found that there were no problems in the said product, however for the complainant’s satisfaction software was upgraded and mobile hand set was made in the working condition and the same was informed to the complainant and the complainant collected the mobile hand set to his full satisfaction vide job sheet no. 116011100826 on the same day. Thereafter the complainant never approached the OPs and then complainant filed this false complaint alleging manufacturing defects in the  mobile hand set. Hence OP-1 to 3 prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

9)      On perusal of contents of objections the OPs, they admit purchase of mobile hand set by complainant from OP.2 & on perusal of the job sheet no. 116011100826 produced by the complainant, the complainant handed over the said mobile hand set bearing IMEI No.352198070683962 to OP-3 on 11.01.2016 & the complaint of the complainant is that there is hanging problem, battery low backup, download problem, data loss problem. The comments of the engineer is that there are no such problems in the mobile hand set. After verifying the said mobile hand set the OP.3 handed over the same to complainant. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that, he approached OP.3 two to three times for repairs of his mobile hand set. The contention of the complainant is that there are manufacturing defects in the mobile hand set. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that there are manufacturing defects in the said mobile hand set & he has not produced expert report to show that there is manufacturing defect in the said mobile hand set. On perusal of job sheet, the complainant handed over the mobile hand set to OP.3 for repairs only once. On perusal of service job sheet there are no defects in the mobile hand set. The complainant failed to prove manufacturing defects in the mobile hand set. The advocate for complainant relied on decisions reported in 2008 (4) CPR Pg.37, 2009 (1) CPR Pg.306, 2010 (3) CPR Pg.246 & 2010 (1) CPR Pg.360(NC). The said decisions are not helpful to the case of the complainant.

          10) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before manufacturing defects or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps has not been proved.

          11)    Accordingly the following

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 31 May 2017)

 

 

 

MSR