SONY ERICSSON INDIA LTD. vs ASHISH AGGARWAL

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the complainant Mr. Ashish Aggarwal had purchased a mobile handset of Sony Ericsson (Model No. P-910 I), for a consideration of Rs. 38,700 on 26.10.2004. The handset carried a warranty of one year. It started giving troubles as a result of which the battery and the charger of the handset were replaced by the petitioners on 3.1.2005. Next time the handset was again taken with a problem in keypad, as a result of which the handset itself was replaced by a new one on 21.9.2005. It was the case of the complainant even this new handset was not working properly which again the petitioners were willing to replace by a new handset but apprehending the continuous problem from this handset, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties directed the petitioner to give a new handset, compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by this order both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner to refund the cost of the mobile set worth Rs. 38,700 within 30 days failing which it would carry interest @ 6% p.a. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also perused the material on record.

There is no disputing the fact that as early as 3.1.2005, the battery and charger of the handset were replaced. Next, the handset itself was replaced, when again the new handset was also found to be faulty, the petitioner was willing to offer replacement by giving a new ''handset''. It is also recorded by the State Commission that this model has been withdrawn from the market.

IT was pleaded before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that they are willing to give the latest ''mobile phone'' of the choice of the complainant, but according to them the complaint has been filed for refund of money for the simple reason that with passage of time, the prices of the sets are coming down and the complainant wants to earn profit from the situation. The above contention of the petitioner leaves us unimpressed. What we are looking at is the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, which is writ large in the case, and duly supported by the factum that they changed the components in the first instance, followed by change of the handset and when that was not working properly, it was further suggested to change the handset. If in these circumstances, the State Commission has awarded refund of the amount which was the consideration paid by the complainant for purchase of handset, we cannot find any illegality or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the State Commission to call for any interference by us. It ought to be noted that the petitioners were given 30 days to pay this amount without interest. Be that as it may, since the other party is not in revision, we are not taking any view of the question of rate of interest.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed. R.P. dismissed.