Haryana

Panchkula

CC/117/2015

vikas vashisht. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ulimate services. - Opp.Party(s)

ANISH GARG.

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                      

Consumer Complaint No	:	117 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	23.06.2015
Date of Decision	:	22.09.2015

                                                                                          

Vikas Vashisht s/o Sh.Rakesh Vashisht, R/o H.No.571, Sector-9, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Ultimate Services (Service Centre), Showroom No.55, Sector 5, Swastik Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula-134109.
2. Sony India (Pvt.) Ltd., Sony India Pvt. Ltd. c/o Drive India Enterprises Solution Ltd., Near Badowal Railway Station, Badowal, Ludhiana.
3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Registered office A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Anish Garg, Adv., for the complainant. 

Ops already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant-Vikas against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a mobile phone marked as C-6902/Xperia, Z1/black (Sony) from the Op No.2 vide invoice No.34557196 dated 01.08.2014 for an amount of Rs.33,827.16/- with a warranty of one year. However, the Op No.1 replaced the earlier purchased mobile phone of the complainant by charging Rs.11,012/- and gave discount/adjustment of Rs.23,757/- as additional amount for the model (Annexure C-1) because earlier purchased mobile phone was defective whereas the complainant requested to refund the amount but they refused. At the time of purchase, the Op No.2 also assured the complainant that if any defect would arise regarding the design, material and workmenship then Ops No.2 and 3 are bound to replace the product and the replaced mobile phone started giving problem in visibility of the lining on the screen. The complainant approached the OPs No.2 & 3 who repaired the same on 17.01.2015 and returned it to the complainant with the assurance that now no problem would arise. But the problem remained the same and the display screen got broken due to substandard quality of the glass. The complainant approached the Ops No.2 & 3 who advised him to approach the OP No.1 i.e. authorized service center. The complainant approached the OP No.1 on 07.05.2015 (Annexure C-4) who asked the complainant to deposit the mobile phone so that he would get the permission to replace the screen from the Ops No.2 and 3. The complainant requested many times the Ops to replace the screen or to replace the mobile phone or to refund the amount but they asked him to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of service and repair of product. The complainant served legal notice to the Ops but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op No.1 through registered AD post and the same has been received back after effecting service. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.07.2015.
3. Notice was issued to the Ops No.2 & 3 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.2 & 3. It is deemed to be served and the Ops No.2 & 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.07.2015.
4. The authorized representative for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. It is evident that the complainant purchased a mobile phone marked as C-6902/Xperia, Z1/black (Sony) from the Op No.2 vide invoice No.34557196 (Annexure C-1) dated 01.08.2014 for an amount of Rs.33,827.16/- with a warranty of one year. The Op No.1 also replaced the earlier purchased mobile phone of the complainant with new one and gave discount/adjustment of Rs.23,757/- by charging Rs.11,012/- as additional amount for new model. Thereafter, the replaced mobile phone started giving problem in visibility of the lining on the screen. The complainant approached the OPs No.2 & 3 who repaired the same. But the problem remained same and the display screen got broken due to substandard quality of the glass. The complainant approached the OP No.1-authorised service center on 07.05.2015 vide ticket ID No.15050700747 (Annexure C-4) with remarks “Display Crack”. The complainant requested many times the Ops to replace the screen or to replace the mobile phone or to refund the amount but they asked him to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of service and repair of product. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. Moreover, the Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same is accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.33,827/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 01.08.2014 till its realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

(iii)    To pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as  cost of litigation.

 

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

22.09.2015     S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

                       MEMBER                     MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT