DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.106 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 07-04.2015
DATE OF ORDER: 30-12-2015
Sushil Kumar son of Shri Kishore Kumar, resident of Modan Gali, near Sita Ram Mandir Halu Bazar, Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- The Manager, Unicom System, Sony Mobile Centre, City Mall, Near Adrash Women College, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.
- 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.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present:- Complainant in person.
Shri Sukhpal Singh, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 20.02.2015 he had purchased one hand set of Sony Company for a sum of Rs.21,000/-. It is alleged that soon after purchase the Hand Set became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with the OPs. The complainant 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 complaint.
2. Opposite parties have filed reply stating that the complainant has not provided any job sheet to corroborate his alleged visit to the ASC. It is submitted that each time a customer approaches an authorized service centre of the OP no. 2, a work order specifying the works performed by the ASC is generated. It is submitted that the fact that the present complaint has been filed within less than two weeks from the date of purchase indicates that the complainant’s sole intent is to harass the Ops and unjustly enrich himself from the present complaint. 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 & Annexure C2 along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R1 and Annexure R-2.
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 opposite parties.
6. The complainant submitted that he visited the OP no. 1, the service centre of OP no. 2, but the Manager of OP no. 1 refused to repair the mobile handset of the complainant. He further submitted that Kuldeep Manager of OP no. 1 threatened him.
7. Learned counsel for Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant never visited OP no. 1 on 20.02.2015. If the complainant had come to OP no. 1, then the work order specifying the works is generated by the ASC. He argued that the complainant has concocted the whole story just to grab the money from the Ops on fictitious grounds. He further submitted that the complainant is habitual for making false complaints for grabbing the money from the mobile companies.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant has produced the bill dated 20.02.2015 issued by Jeenu Gift Shop as Annexure C-2 and his affidavit is Annexure C-1. He has not produced any other document in support of his allegations. As per the contention of the complainant he purchased the mobile handset on 20.02.2015 and his mobile handset was hanged on the same day and the Sony Care Centre updated the software of the mobile and returned it to him. He has further alleged in his complaint that on 20.02.2015 his mobile handset was again hanged and the OP no. 1 refused to repair his mobile handset. It is very strange that the complainant purchased the mobile handset on 20.02.2015 and on the same day it was hanged twice as per his allegation. The mobile handset is within the warranty period and the Ops are liable to make necessary repairs and set right the mobile handset of the complainant. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the Ops are directed to remove the defects in the mobile handset in question of the complainant free of cost, within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. 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:.30-12-2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Balraj Singh), (Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member. Member
