STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 30.01.2019 Date of Final Hearing : 13.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2026 SC/5/A/239/2018

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

A-18, Mohan Cooperatives, Industrial Estate Mathura Rod, Delhi 110044

2. M/s Tirupati Enterprises Through its authorized signatory

45, Vivek Vihar, Near National Bank Haridwar (Uttarakhand) 249407 (Through: Sh. V.K. Srivastava, Advocate)

…..Appellants VERSUS Sh. Himanshu Sain R/o HIG, 3A, Shivlok Colony Haridwar, Uttarakhand (Through: Sh. Shree Gopal Narson & Sh. Ashok Tomar Advocates)

…..Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 17.11.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 259 of 2016 styled as Sh. Himanshu Sain vs. M/s Tirupati Enterprises and Anr., wherein and whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to replace the old mobile handset with new one model XZ-2 with new warranty within one month from the date of order or to refund Rs. 45,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filing of complaint case, i.e. 31.05.2016 till actual payment as well as Rs.

10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant has purchased a mobile handset of Sony company bearing model number Sony Xperia Z2D6502, IMEI number 352494060612156, invoice number 2597 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- on dated 05.07.2015 from Prayag Tele Communication, H 5-A, Ground Floor, Heera Complex, Ranipur More, Hardwar (U.K.) authorised dealer of opposite party No. 2. The said mobile handset was manufactured by opposite party No. 2 – Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and was covered under one year warranty. It is alleged that soon after the purchase, the said mobile handset began to develop several defects such as excessive battery drain, network dropping and overheating. The complainant approached to the opposite party No. 1 – authorised service center of opposite party No. 2 on dated 22.04.2016 seeking rectification of the said defects. However, no effective or satisfactory action was taken. Since the opposite parties failed to take any effective steps to rectify the defects in the said mobile handset, which amounts deficiency in service and hence, the present complaint has been filed.

3. The opposite parties in their written statement had admitted the fact of sale of aforesaid mobile handset to the complainant on dated 05.07.2015. But they denied the allegations regarding any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service. They have further contended that the complainant is not entitled to any relief from the opposite parties, hence complaint deserves to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2018 wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed in the above manner.

5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, an appeal has been submitted on behalf of the opposite parties as appellants alleging that the District Commission has considered the false allegations leveled by the respondent – complainant. The Commission below has made a grave error by observing that the appellants were guilty in rendering ‘deficient service’ despite the fact that the respondent never visited any of the service center of the appellant No. 1. That the District Commission has failed to consider that there was no service history / work order furnished by the respondent and in the absence of any service history, it is clear that the respondent never approached the service center f