BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.171 of 2014
Date of Institution : 3.12.2014
Date of Decision : 20.2.2017.
Bhajan Dass S/o Sh. Chamba Ram, R/o H. No.96, DC Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Wadhwa Mobile Care, Near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road, Sirsa.
2. M/s Chugh Telecom, B1, B2, B3, 83 New MC Market, Opp. Circular Road, Sirsa.
3. Sony India Head Office, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi: 110044, Delhi, India.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….…PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL …… …MEMBER.
Present: Sh. V.P. Arora, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.J.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the opposite party No.3.
Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased one mobile Sony Experia model C (C2305) from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.20500/- vide invoice No.39662 dated 14.1.2014. It is averred that from the very date of purchase of said mobile, it was creating minor problems and after about 1½ months, its lock button went out of order and complainant approached op no.1 to get it repaired. The op no.1 sent the complainant to op no.2 to get it repaired who conducted the necessary work. But in the last week of June, 2014 it started creating major problems like continuous hanging, rebooting of mobile while using internet and low battery and the matter was reported to op no.1 and after evading, the op no.1 instructed him to approach op no.2 The complainant approached op no.2 and requested to get his mobile repaired where Mr. Bharat Chugh executive of op no.2 advised him to keep the mobile charging without using it for 24 hours. The complainant kept his mobile on charging for 24 hours but this time the mobile could not be switched on and its disply also went off. On approaching again to op no.2, he was asked to deposit Rs.7200/- to get replaced its display with new one despite of guarantee period and op no.2 did not pay any attention to his request and stated that company does not provide guarantee on display items. It is further averred that complainant visited ops No.1 & 2 time and again but they flatly refused to provide any service and op no.2 stated that if he has any complaint he can approach service centre at Hisar. Then complainant approached there where service centre, Hisar checked the mobile and that the mobile is completely out of order and in such cases mobile is replaced with new one but he has to contact concerned service centre at Sirsa. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.9.2014 to the ops calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs.20500/- within a period of 15 days as cost of mobile, Rs.10,000/- for harassment and Rs.5000/- as legal fee but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, initially ops No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel but thereafter ld. counsel withdrew the vakalatnama on behalf of op no.2. Fresh summons were issued to op no.2 and summons were also issued to op no.1 but none appeared on their behalf despite due service and therefore, ops No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party No.3 appeared and filed reply pleading therein that complainant brought a physically damaged handset to the ops on 21.7.2014. The complainant was explained that since the device was physically damaged due to external impact, the warranty on the same is void and the same shall have to be repaired on cost basis only. Also, an estimate of Rs.7000/- was provided to him. After getting a rough estimate, the complainant did not approach the ops and returned back the mobile and did not pursue the repairs thereon. The ops replied the legal notice on 7.1.2015 stating that the negligent act is on part of complainant as on inspection the product was found to be physically damaged. Therefore, as per the warranty terms and conditions, the warranty stands void and the services of the subject set will be on chargeable basis only. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, list of address of company service centre, Sirsa Ex.C2, copy of terms and conditions of warranty Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 and copy of warranty Ex.C8. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit Ex.OPW1/A, copy of resolution Ex.OPW1/1, reply to legal notice Ex.OPW1/2 and terms and conditions of warranty Ex.OPW1/3.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has not placed on file any expert report on file to prove that mobile in question is having any manufacturing defect and same is not physically damaged. His own affidavit only is not, at all, sufficient to prove his allegations. It is the specific stand of the op no.3 that device brought to them on 21.7.2014 was physically damaged due to external impact and physical damage is not covered under warranty. As stated above complainant has failed to prove that defect, if any in the mobile has occurred due to manufacturing defect and he was not negligent in any manner in using the mobile in question. As such, the complainant has failed to prove his case.
7. Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 20.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
