DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. SONY ERICSON MOBILE COMMUNICATION AB COMPANY
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-2-3
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 02,2009

DEEPAK KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Sony Ericson Mobile Communication Ab Company Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL - (1.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to this appeal are, that respondent No.2 as authorised dealer of Sony Ericson Mobile Handset, sold one such set for Rs. 8,800 vide bill copy whereof is there at pages 24 and 25 of the complaint file, to the appellant. This was purchased on 2.8.2005 and it was within warranty for a period of one year and warranty was upto 1.8.2006. Respondent is the authorised dealer of respondent No. l is not in dispute.
(2.) THIS mobile handset was found defective after a month or so, as such the appellant brought it for its repair on more than one occasions to respondent No. 2. Defects persisted despite the mobile handset in question having been repaired as per the appellant. Defects were signal in the mobile handset was faulty, and during the course of call/conversation, there used to be automatic disruption.
(3.) IN this background respondents were requested to replace the mobile handset on a number of occasions. However on 28.12.2005 they refused. Since they were deficient in providing service because of their having sold a defective mobile handset, as such complaint was filed. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000 was claimed for sale of faulty mobile handset. In their joint reply, respondents denied that if ever any complaint was made by the appellant to respondent No. 2 regarding any defect in the mobile handset. Similarly no assurance was ever given by respondent No. 2 as alleged by the appellant. Therefore question of sending the mobile handset to Chandigarh by respondent No. 2 did not arise at all. Story in this behalf was concocted to harass the respondents. It is further case of the respondents that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset that was purchased by the appellant after being satisfied with its functioning. Locus standi of the appellant as also no cause of action having arisen in his favour were also set up as defences, because after purchase the appellant never approached respondent No. 2, thus prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. In rejoinder facts detailed in the complaint were reiterated and those as set out in the reply were disputed. Appellant as well as his father have filed affidavits by way of evidence. These have been controverted by the affidavit of Virender Sharma -respondent No. 2.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.