BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,MANGALORE

Dated this the 28^th JUNE 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI                 : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.121/2017

(Admitted on 04.04.2017)

Mr. Jamaluddhin,

S/o Late U Abdul Rahim,

Aged about 37 years,

R/at Arroweyes Mobile shop,

Kamath Building,

Main Road Puttur,

Puttur, D.K.

                                                                 ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri SD)

VERSUS

1. Managing Director,

    Sony India Pvt Ltd,

    A-31, Mohan Co-Operative, Industrial Estate,

    Mathura Road, New Delhi  110044.

2. Proprietor,

    Music World,

Darbe, Main Road,

Puttur, D.K 02.

3. Proprietor,

    M/s Coretech Services,

    G-1, Maurishka Towers,

Bendoor, Mallikatte Road, Kadri,

    Mangalore  02.

                                                 …......OPPOSITE PARTIES

 (Opposite Parties No.1, No.2& No.3: Ex parte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

     The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under

The Complainant mentions on 28.5.2014 he purchased Z2 Sony Mobile Hand Set for Rs.48,990/ from opposite party No.2 which was manufactured by opposite party No.1 as there was problem within 3 days of purchase he took it to opposite party No.3 the service centre and it was setright.  Again on 31.05.2014 and 03.03.2015 there were different problem in the mike not working and loud speaker problem and was setright by opposite party No.3.   On 18.7.2015 software was done and FPC relay was replaced by opposite party No.3.  Again on 12.3.2016 there was problem in mike and it was handed over to opposite party No.3 but opposite party No.3 has not repaired it and has not returned it to complainant which is a costly handset. Despite legal notice serve on opposite parties for refund of the amount opposite parties have not complied hence seeks the reliefs claimed in the complaint.

2.     On service of notice though opposite party No.3 on the first hearing entered appearance and decided to settle the case did not appear either to settle or file version hence opposite parties were placed ex parte.

3.      In support of the above complaint Mr. Jamaluddhinfiled affidavit evidence as CW1 and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C9 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties not filed affidavit evidence.

4.      In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

The learned counsel for complainant addressed oral argument.  We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the party.   Our findings on the points are as under follows:

               Point No. (i)  : Affirmative

               Point No. (ii) : Affirmative

               Point No.(iii) : As per the final order

REASONS

5.        POINT NO. (i)& (ii):Thecomplainant filed affidavit evidence to the complaint pleaded facts. Ex. C1 is the tax invoice as per which complainantpurchased mobile hand set in question on 28^thMay2014. Ex.C2 dated 13^thJune 2014, Ex.C3 dated 10^thMarch 2015, Ex.C4 dated 16^thJuly 2015, Ex.C5 dated 12^thMarch 2016 are the job cards for delivering the mobile hand set to opposite party No.3 by complainant. Of these except Ex.C5 the rest are within the one year warranty period from the date of purchase and no amount was charged on complainant.  Suffice to mention that these document showthe hand set purchased by complainant was given to repair on whichrelationship ofconsumer the complainant and opposite parties service providers is established.

6.     Ex.C6 is the legal notice addressed to the opposite parties on behalf of complainant.   Ex.C7 is the reply sent on behalf of opposite party No.1 to Ex.C6.  It mentionsthere was MIC problem on 12.03.2016 and it was found that mic relay and battery are defective and it needs to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the complainant hand set and accordingly the estimation of Rs.2,700/ was shared by the service personnel but complainant had not approved the estimation and mention that it was beyond the period of warranty.  As seen from the complaint there is no mention made in the complaint as to the statement of opposite party No.1 at Ex.C7.Considering the fact that there was instrumentcame for repair which was setright byopposite party No.3 within 3 days of purchase of the costly hand set by complainant.  As rightly pointed out for complainant opposite party No.3 has not set-right themobile hand set in respect of complaint of 12.3.2016 these document produced by complainant in this case. Then hand set was givento Opposite Party no.3 for repeated problem to complainant. As such while considering the complaint in favourably in view of repeated faults occurring on the system even thoughcomplainant had not agreed to pay the repaired cost as not mention anything as to sharing of 50% of the repaired charge with men of opposite party No.3 as mentioned at Ex. C7.  We are of the view thatcomplainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Complainant is now made to bear of the burden of a handset which came for repeated repairs.Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative & No.2 partly in the affirmative.

7.POINT NO.(iii):      As such it is a fit case for directing opposite parties to pay the value of the mobile to complainant less by allowing depreciation in the value. This is for the reason that the mobile was not returned by opposite party No.3 to complainant and that mobile hand set was handover to opposite party No.3 on the last occasion on 12.3.2016 beyond the period of warranty.  Towards the depreciation in thevalue in our view an amount of 25% of the value for the period of 2 years in our opinion is just and proper.   Hence 75% of the hand set value comes to Rs.36,742.5 rounded uptoRs.36,740/.  Hence we answer partly against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 in the affirmative.  Complainant gave the mobile for repair,not handover to complainant by opposite party No.3 consideringnonreturn of the handset to complainant.Towardsharassment a sum of Rs.10,000/ shall be ordered to be paid and also the cost of the complaint shall fixed at Rs.3000/.  Wherefore the following

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed.  Opposite parties No.1 and No.3 jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.36,740/ (Rupees Thirty Six thousand Seven hundred Forty only) to complainant.

2.     Opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation to complainant and another sum of Rs.3,000/ (Rupees Three thousand only) towards cost of complaint.

3.     Opposite parties shall pay the amounts within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  On failure to pay the above amounts to complainant within stipulated time opposite parties are directed to pay interest on the above amount at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment to complainant.

4.    Complainant against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.             

     (Page No.1 to 7 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28^thJune 2017)

              MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT

      (LAVANYA M. RAI)                          (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                   D.K. District Consumer Forum

            Mangalore                                                        Mangalore

                                                                                  ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Jamaluddhin

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 28.05.2014: Xerox copy of Tax Invoice

Ex.C2:31.05.2014: Service Job Sheet issued by 3^rd OP

Ex.C3: 03.03.2015: Service Job Sheet issued by 3^rd OP

Ex.C4: 16.07.2015: Service Job Sheet issued by 3^rd OP

Ex.C5: 12.03.2016: Service Job Sheet issued by 3^rd OP

Ex.C6: 25.10.2016: O/c of the regd lawyer’s notice

Ex.C7: 17.11.2016: Reply of 1^st OP

Ex.C8: 28.10.2016: Postal acknowledgement of 2^nd OP

Ex.C9: 31.10.2016: Postal acknowledgement of 3^rd OP

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Dated: 28.06.2017                    PRESIDENT