DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.267 of 14

                                           DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 10-.9.2014

                                                     DATE OF ORDER: -11-8-2015

Sahil Goel son of Shri Sushil Goel, resident of 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 7.7.2014 he had purchased one hand set of Sony Company for a sum of Rs.23500/-. 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 complainant.

2.                Opposite parties have filed reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the complainant approached the service centre of the company on 18.8.2014 with the complaint that the handset was hanging and the same was thoroughly inspected and it was found that the said problem was arising due to some applications on handset. It is submitted that the problem was a software issue and not a hardware related issue. So, the service engineers advised the complainant that they would carry out a software update which would have solve the problem being experienced by him but the complainant refused to get the software upgraded and has filed 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 Photostat copy of Bill dated 7.7.2014, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of application dated 18.10.2014, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of undertaking given by the Manager of the Service Centre of Company and Annexure C4 Photostat copy of Job Sheet along with supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R1 Photostat copy of guidelines, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of letter dated 29^th October, 2014 and Annexure R3 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 parties.

6.                 The complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint and in support of his claim and he referred copies of documents, Bill dated 7.7.2014 Annexure C1, complaint dated 18.10.2014 Annexure C2, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of undertaking given by the Manager of the company and Annexure C4 service job sheet dated 21.2.2015. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of complainant but neither it is signed by the complainant nor it is attested by the competent authority.

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 7.7.2014 and the same was deposited by him vide service job sheet dated 21.2.2015 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.