BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                                        Complaint Case no.15 of  2017       

                                                          Date of Institution:          20.1.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:     31.10.2017

Kapil Dev son of Shri Dharam Pal, resident of village Rania Road, Gali Mochianwali, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Wadhwa Mobiles, Authorized Company Show-room, through its authorized Incharge/ Proprietor Shop at Circular Road, Sirsa.

2. Chugh Telecom, Authorized Service Centre at New M.C. Colony, M.C. Market Shop No.81-82-83, Sirsa.

3. Sony India Pvt. Limited, A-31, Mohan Corporative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Officer. 

                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………… MEMBER

                   SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. Mukesh Kaliramna, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. A.S. Kaura, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

          In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased one Mobile set make Sony X-peria from opposite party no.1 against cash amount of Rs.12,990/- vide invoice No.51876 dated 22.6.2015 with one year warranty. The op no.1 also assured that the warranty period of the mobile set will be calculated from the period of sale of mobile and thereafter the complainant took rounds to op no.1 for the same but op no.1 got registered the same with op no.2 only on 2.7.2015 and assured the complainant that one year warranty period will start from 2.7.2015. It is further averred that just after the purchase of the mobile, the mobile gone out of order and became useless as it started hanging during its functioning and also suffered problem of ear speaker, audio problem, PCB and other problem. The complainant approached the op no.1 for the first time in the month of May, 2016 and complained about the defect in the mobile set and op no.1 after thorough checking of the mobile set was satisfied that there is major defect/ manufacturing defect in the mobile and kept the same with him being well within warranty period and assured the complainant that he will get replaced the mobile set from the company. Since then the complainant is making rounds to the ops No.1 and 2 time and again but his grievance has not been redressed by the ops. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply submitting therein that after enjoying the said handset for more than eleven and half months, the complainant for the very first approached op no.2 on 22.6.2016 raising an issue with the “Ear Speaker” of the said mobile handset. The op no.2 without any delay immediately attended the complainant and inspected the handset. After carrying out necessary inspection, the op no.2 replaced the board of the said mobile and delivered the same to the complainant in a proper working condition. Nothing was charged from complainant for carrying out the said replacement of part. Thereafter, the complainant again approached op no.2 on 23.8.2016 raising an issue with the “Audio and network” of the said mobile. This time the complainant approached at a stage when the warranty period was already expired and not only this the complainant did not produce the invoice of the handset, the production of which is mandatory for carrying out any repair action. It is further submitted that the complainant approached at a stage when the warranty period was already expired and secondly the complainant failed to produce the original invoice of the handset to the service centre. Due to the said reasons, the op no.2 refused to provide any free of cost service. But op no.2 shared an estimated cost of repair with the complainant. However, the same was rejected by the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of job sheet dated 5.7.2016 Ex.C2 and copy of job sheet dated 23.8.2016 Ex.C3. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Priyank Chauhan Ex.RW1/A.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The complainant in order to prove has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and filed documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. On the other hand, ops furnished affidavit of Sh. Priyank Chauhan as Ex.RW1/A in order to prove their defence plea. During the course of arguments, it has been conceded by learned counsel for ops that no doubt there was a warranty of one year from the date of purchase of the mobile but the complainant has already enjoyed the mobile for a period more than 11 months and 15 days and the warranty remained only of 15 days and there is nothing on record from which it could be presumed that mobile suffers from any manufacturing defect, so the complainant is not entitled for any replacement of the mobile or refund of the amount and he is only entitled to repair of the mobile.

6.                On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant has stated at bar that he has no objection in case the order for repairing is passed and to make the mobile defect free without any cost even by replacing the parts, if any of the mobile but in case the parts are not available in that situation the ops be directed to replace the mobile with new one.

7.                No doubt, the evidence of the complainant reveal that complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion that mobile of the complainant was suffering from any manufacturing defect but it is proved fact that during the warranty period the complainant had approached the ops with a request that mobile was not working properly. He has also used the same for a period of more than eleven months. So it will be in the fitness of things if order for repair of the mobile in question is passed.

8.                In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repair of the mobile in question of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing any part without any cost within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order but in case it is found by the ops that parts are not available due to any reason they are at liberty to replace the mobile with a new one. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.   File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.     Member      Member                              President,

Dated:31.10.2017.                                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                     Redressal Forum, Sirsa.