DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. : CC/176/2017 Date of Institution : 27/02/2017 Date of Decision : 01/01/2018 Navjot Singh s/o Sh. Kirtan Singh r/o #251, Sector 4, Mundi Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab). ?..Complainant V E R S U S 1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Chairman, having its registered office at A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. 2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., through its authorised representative, having its Branch Office at 3rd Floor, Adarsh Mall, Plot No.50, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-2, Chandigarh. 3. Rai and Sons, Authorised Service Centre Sony India Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager, SCO 60, Sector 47C, Chandigarh. 4. Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director/Chairman, SCO 1012-13, sector 22-B, Chandigarh. ??Opposite Parties CORAM : SH. RAJAN DEWAN PRESIDENT MRS.SURJEET KAUR MEMBER ARGUED BY : Sh. Ankit Aggarwal, Counsel for complainant : Sh. Vikrant Sharma, Counsel for OPs Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 21.3.2016, the complainant purchased a Sony E5663 Xperia mobile handset from OP-4 for Rs.23,890/- and the same was having warranty of one year. In July, 2016, the said mobile set started giving problems for which the complainant approached OP-3 where he was told to continue using the set for some more time and he was assured that the same would be replaced with a new one. However, the complainant again started facing same problems, therefore, he approached OP-3 and job sheet dated 28.9.2016 was prepared. The said handset was handed over to the complainant after repairs on 1.11.2016. However, again after one and half month, the handset started giving same problems and OP-3 prepared job sheet dated 16.1.2017. The handset was returned to the complainant within three days, but, the problems persisted. The complainant wrote many mails to OP-1, but, no satisfactory reply was ever received. The OPs totally refused to replace the handset and rather misbehaved with the complainant. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. OPs in their joint written reply have not disputed the factual matrix. It has been averred that the issue pertaining to the handset was duly resolved by the service centre. Replacement of parts was done and services were provided absolutely free of cost to the complainant. It has been stated that no document has been furnished by the complainant to establish that the handset in question was having some manufacturing defect. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased one Sony (E5663 Xperia) mobile handset with one year warranty from OP-4 after spending Rs.23,890/- on 21.3.2016. Annexure C-2 is the job sheet dated 28.9.2016 whereby the complainant deposited the handset to OP-3 for necessary repairs, but, the same was returned to the complainant vide bill dated 1.11.2016 (Annexure C-3). Thereafter again the handset got some problem and so it was submitted to OP-3 on 16.1.2017, but, as per the case of the complainant, the defects could not be rectified. The stand taken by the OPs is that the issue pertaining to the handset was duly resolved when the complainant visited the service centre and necessary parts were replaced absolutely free of cost. It has also been contended that the complainant has not furnished any document which establishes the fact that the handset in question is having some manufacturing defect. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. After going through the documents on record it is evident that vide Annexure C-2, job sheet, the handset was deposited with OP-3 on 28.9.2016 and admittedly the same was returned to the complainant on 1.11.2016 after a long period of time without explaining the reason of such delay. Pertinently, the OPs have admitted in para 6 of their reply that the necessary parts were replaced absolutely free of cost. We feel that the complainant invested a huge amount of Rs.23,890/- to facilitate himself by trusting the brand, but, admittedly within six months of purchase, OPs replaced necessary parts in the branded product. The replacement of various parts in a gadget, having warranty of one year, just within a period of six months, proves that a sub-standard product was sold to the complainant which did not work even for one year. Hence, the OPs are proved to be deficient in rendering proper service and also indulged in unfair trade practice which certainly has caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:- To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. 23,890/- to the complainant. The complainant shall, however, return the handset in question to the OPs. To pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him; To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. Sd/- Sd/- 01/01/2018 [Surjeet Kaur] [Rajan Dewan] hg Member President