DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.268 of 14

                                           DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 10-.9.2014

                                                     DATE OF ORDER: -11-8-2015

Mangal son of Shri Naresh Kumar, resident of Bichla Bazar, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.

    ……………Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Unicom System, Sony Mobile Centre, B-1, Beeju Tower, Near Vodaphone Store, Bhiwani, Meham Gate, Bhiwani.

1. The Manager, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

  Shri Balraj Singh, Member

Present:-   Complainant in person.

       Shri Balbir Mehta, Advocate for Ops.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

          In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 12.6.2014 he had purchased one hand set of Sony Company for a sum of Rs.17100/-. It is alleged that soon after purchase the Hand Set became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with the Ops and the same was replaced with new one. The complainant further alleged that after some times the replaced Hand Set also became out of order and he visited the service centre of respondent company several times and requested to repair the same but it flatly refused to do the needful. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the replacement of the Hand Set along with compensation and costs by way of filing present complainant.

2.                Opposite parties have filed reply stating, inter-alia, therein that during the pendency of the complaint, complainant approached OP No.1 on 18.10.2014 and was asked by the service engineer to deposit the hand set in order for the handset to be thoroughly inspected. It is submitted that on 18.10.2014 the complainant was provided with standby set so as not to inconvenience during the period for which it was in the possession of OP No.1 It is further submitted that the service engineer of the company replaced the PCB under warranty and repeatedly called the complainant to collect the hand set but he refused to collect the same. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3.                 In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy of Bill dated 12.6.2014, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of application, Annexure C4 Photostat copy of letter dated 7^th Oct. 2014 and Annexure C4 Photostat copy of Job Sheet along with supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure Photostat copy of resolution and Annexure R2 Photostat copy of guidelines along with supporting affidavit.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for the OPs.

6.                 The complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint and in support of his claim he referred copies of documents, Bill dated 17.6.2014 Annexure C1, complaint dated 3.11.2014 Annexure C2, letter dated 7.10.2014 sent by Registered Office of the Ops to the complainant Annexure C3 and service job sheet dated 3.9.2014 Annexure C4.

7.                Learned counsel for Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the Mobile Handset of the complainant is fully repaired and is lying with OP No.1. He further argued that the complainant is not taking the delivery of his Mobile Handset with ulterior motive. He further stated that when the complainant deposited his Mobile Handset with OP No.1 then the OP No.1 had given to him standby Mobile Handset for the use and now the complainant has to return the said standby to the Ops and taking the delivery of his Mobile Handset.

8.                Mobile Handset in question was purchased by the complainant vide bill dated 12.6.2014 and the same was deposited by him vide service job sheet dated 3.9.2013 with OP No.1 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 10.9.2014. Keeping in view the facts of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the complainant to return the standby Mobile Handset to the Ops and the Ops are directed to deliver the new mobile hand set against his mobile hand set which was deposited by him with the OP No.1, of the same value. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation charges.

          Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:.11-8-2015.                                           (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                       President,      

                                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                           Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

     (Balraj Singh),

       Member.