Date of Filing: 09/12/2015
Date of Order: 16/11/2018
BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 16th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
PRESENT
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT
SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1977/2015
COMPLAINANT: | | |
| | S.Raja S/o. M.Sukumar, Aged about 30 years, Residing at L & T Geostructure, No.18, Gangadhara Chetty Road, Bengaluru-42. (Sri. A.V.,Adv., for complainant) |
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTIES: | | |
| | 1.Poorvika Mobile World Poorvika Mobile Pvt. Ltd., Rept. By its Manager, Sree Poojyaya Mansion, No.545, CMH Road, Indiranagar, Binnamangala, 1st Stage, Bengaluru-38. 2. Head Office Poorvika Mobile World, Poorvika Mobiles Pvt.Ltd., By its Manager, No.14/25, Chakarabani street, West Mambalam, Chennai. (By Sri.A.M.,Adv. for Ops) |
ORDER
BY SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER:
1. This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as O.Ps) alleging the deficiency in service and direct O.Ps to repair the mobile and hand over to the complainant in good working condition by receiving the repairing charges and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassing the complainant and for other consequential reliefs as this Forum deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are: that, complainant purchased the mobile set AUXUX from O.Ps. After using for some days, the complainant faced some problem with touch screen. The complainant gave the mobile AUXUX to OP shop situated at Indiranagar, Bangalore for setting right the touch screen problem. O.P. took the mobile and gave receipt. On 29.06.2015, op asked the complainant to come to shop to collect the same. When the complainant went to the service centre, they asked some time to repair the mobile. They returned the mobile without resolving the issue of display problem when he went to collect the same. And again they asked some more time to fix the issue. The manager of OP shop talked very rudely and he told the mobile cannot be repaired and suggested to take the damaged mobile. Even after request also OP 1 failed to resolve the issue. Ultimately complainant issued legal notice calling upon the OP to hand over the mobile with all necessary repairs. After receiving notice OP neither replied nor resolved problem. Hence the complaint.
3. Upon the service of notice, O.P appeared through his counsel and filed version. It is contended that the complaint is not maintainable, it is vexatious, frivolous, incorrect, false and liable to be dismissed. Opposite parties submit that mobile phones do not have warranty and the problem has been misrepresented. OP denied the purchase of the phone and its use by the complainant. Further the complainant left the phone in its showroom for repair of the display problem and not for touch screen problem. The nature of the problem would always be written on the job sheet and the same would be seen by technician and then the would take up the work. The complainant has signed and accepted all the terms and conditions mentioned in the job sheet. Generally, touch sensors and the display parts are conjoined and to repair the same is very difficult as both parts cannot be removed separately to be repaired. And it is also known fact that once the technician stated work and on opening the phone there were some problems with the repairs and parts that were already damaged were unrecoverable and hence spare parts would have to be ordered to replace the same. The employees of the OPs are highly trained and are courteous and would never raise their voice or be rude to the customer. The OP put an offer to pay half of the amount towards the repair of touch and display and that the complainant to bear the other half. OP states that it is willing to pay half the amount towards the repair only as good will gesture. Due to lack of spare parts availability in the market, the phone could not be repaired and this was also informed to the complainant and even suggested as solution to the situation by offering to pay half of amount towards the repair but complainant refused the offer. In view of the above, there is no deficiency in service and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In order to substantiate the case, the parties have filed their affidavit evidence and we also heard their arguments.
5. The following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) : In the affirmative.
POINT (B) : Partly in the affirmative and
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No. (A) & (B):-
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence placed on record, though denied by the OP the purchase of the phone and its use. It is undisputed that the OP has received the defective mobile set and even after taking sufficient time, it did not rectify the faults and thereby made the complainant to suffer lot. Op failed to stick on with its promise to repair as was assured and agreed to give Rs.5000/- towards damage caused to mobile by his negligent act. Further, knowing fully well that accessories in the market were not available, it should not have given false promise. It is the duty of the experts of the service centre in the concerned field has to resolve as early as possible. If they fail in discharging their part of duty, automatically it is un fair-trade practice.
8. The purchase of handset and defects as urged in the complaint in regard to the hand set are not in dispute. OP failed to resolve the issue and intentionally evaded to return the said mobile hand set on one or other pretext. Further it is stated by O.P. that it is very difficult to get the parts that required for repair and due to lack of spare parts available in the market, the phone could not be repaired. If that being the situation, what prevented the OP to return the mobile in its original condition has not properly explained. Even after receiving Legal notice, OP neither replied to the said legal notice issued nor taken any action in replacing mobile handset which clearly go to show that OP is negligent and scant respect to its customer which is undisputedly coming within the ambit of unfair-trade practice. And in view of the admissions given by the OP in his version, we feel that it is just and proper to order for replacement of new mobile in place of defective hand set. Accordingly we answer to point No.1 In the affirmative and 2 partly in the affirmative.
9. On the basis of the findings given on the point No. 1 and 2 as above, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is partly allowed with cost.
2. The OPs are directed to give new mobile in place of defective hand set to the complainant. Within 30 days failing which, to pay the cost of the set along with interest@ 12% from the date of this complainant.
3. The O.Ps are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 16th Day of November 2018)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
PW.1 : Mrs. S.Raja -Complainant
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex.P.1: Original receipt
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: Sri. V.Harikumar of O.P.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
-Nil-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
