Appeal No.63 of 2009. Case: Sh. Mangal Singh Vs 1. M/s. Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., 2. Salora International Ltd., 3. Sony Ericsson, DLF Cyber City. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Appeal No.63 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: Sh. Mangal Singh |
| Judges | Mr. Pritam Pal, President, Maj. Gen. S. P. Kapoor (Retd.), Member And Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member. |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Judgement Date | October 14, 2009 |
| Court | Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Judgment:
Mr. Pritam Pal, President
-
This appeal by Sh. Mangal Singh, Complainant is directed against order dated 26.12.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No.453 of 2008 whereby his complaint filed in connection with the defect in his mobile phone was allowed in the following terms: -
The OPs are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with a new one of same or similar configuration within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the complainant wants any other mobile set, he should intimate the same to the OPs and he would pay the difference amount in case the selected mobile is costlier than the present one and would also receive the difference amount if the selected mobile set is cheaper than the present one. If the mobile set is not replaced within the above said period, the OPs would refund the amount of Rs.2700/- with interest @10% per annum from 8.5.2007 till actual payment to the complainant.
-
Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal may be capitulated thus: -
(a) The appellant (complainant) purchased one Sony Ericsson mobile phone, J-2301 model from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.2,700/- vide Bill No.2895 dated 8.5.2007 (C-1). The said mobile phone, it was averred, started giving problems relating to charging, speaker and mike after its use for about 2-3 months. As per the complainant, when he approached OP No.1 in relation to the problems in his mobile phone, OP No.1 asked him to approached OP No.2 on 11.5.2007. It was next averred in the complaint that the defects in the mobile set were duly attended by the answering OP and the same was handed over to the Complainant. The allegation of the complainant was that even after its repairs, the defects in the mobile were still there and the same is still giving problems to the complainant. It was averred that subsequently, the complainant had approached OP No.2 number of times for getting his mobile phone repaired i.e. on 16.5.2007, 23.5.2007, 25.12.2007 and 25.2.2008, but the said defects still existed, which led to the filing of the present complaint.
(b) The version of OP No.1 is that the mobile set was provided to the Complainant in a sealed condition with a specific guarantee by the manufacturer of the set. As per this OP, OP No.2 being the authorized dealer of the manufacturer was competent to rectify the defect and in case...
To continue reading
Request your trial