BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 20th JUNE 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.234/2015
(Admitted on 15.07.2015)
Mrs. Shantha,
W/o Canute Francis Pereira,
Adult,
R/at Anjum Court Apartments,
Ashoknagar, Mangalore.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri DSA)
VERSUS
1. The Manager,
M/s Coretech Service,
1st Floor, Metro Plaza, Above Axis Bank,
Valencia Opp More Super Market,
Mangalore 575002.
2. The Manger,
Sony India Pvt. Ltd., (change in opposite party No.2s
companys name as per order at para 8)
1.2/6(2), First Floor, Hill Groove,
Chilimbi, 2nd Cross,
Mangalore 575006.
…........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 & No.2: Sri BMD)
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:
The Complainant mentions on 7.5.2015 she handover her Sony mobile handset for repair of charging socket to opposite party and that time she was informed that he would charge repair cost would be Rs.560/ and to which she agreed to pay. Though opposite party agreed to delivery back in three days failed to handover the repaired handset to complainant in spite of repeated visits till June 2015 opposite party had neither repaired the complainants mobile handset nor opposite party handover the same. On 25.5.2015 the complainant got issued legal notice to opposite party filed to reply to the notice. Thereafter in July 2015 opposite party delivered the complainant’s mobile when she reached home she checked the mobile set she could not hear the phone call voice in it. Immediately she took the handset to opposite party but refused to accept the same and has refused to check for any problem in it without there being any opinion complainant took it for repair at Ashirvad Mobile Service, Menezes Towers, Urva Store Mangalore as to her shock she was informed by the technician at the service centre that speaker itself is missing and to buy the new speaker for which she spent Rs.200/. Hence seeks the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
2. In the version opposite parties claim that the name of Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd is now changed with effect from 1st September 2013 as Sony India Pvt Ltd in view of taken over by order by High Court of Delhi dated July 23, 2013. Hence seeks substitution of the name when complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 07.05.2013 it was noticed charging socket damaged and charging connection of the hand set is damaged and required to be changed which was duly changed by the service engineer of the opposite party No.1 and complainant collected the hand set in working condition. The complainant is now making false allegation. There is also no cause of action to the complaint and filed false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect come before this Forum. Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
3. In support of the above complaint Mrs. Shantha filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C5 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Priyank Chauhan (RW1) Authorized Signatory of Sony India Pvt Ltd, also filed affidavit evidence.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
(i) Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
(iii) What order?
The learned counsel for opposite parties filed notes of argument. Complainant not filed notes of argument. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties. 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): The purchase of the mobile hand set by complainant and it was serviced in opposite party No.1 by complainant
which is the service centre of opposite party No.2 is undisputed. Hence there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. Complainant claims after opposite party No.1 did not carry out the repair work entrusted in time as promised but after legal notice it was delivered to complainant. Complainant further claim that when she returned to home and while using the mobile hand set noticed it was not working and again on the same day she approached opposite party No.1 but did not entertain and then she went to Ashirvad Mobile Service, Menezes Towers, Urva Store, Mangalore and the technician on verification found that there is no speaker in the hand set. However opposite party denied this allegation and mentions after complete repair of hand set after verifying handover to complainant and a false complaint is made by complainant. Thus there is lis between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
6. POINT NO. (ii): In the complaint it is mentioned that hand set was given to opposite party for repair of charging socket on 07.05.2015 and opposite party No.1 promised to give it within 3 days but it was not delivered as promised leading to legal notice. Copy of the legal notice is produced. It is dated 25.5.2015. Ex.C3 is the job card issued by opposite party No.1 on 07.05.2015. It mentions the condition as damaged and charging socket is damaged. The complainant allegation is till June 2015 opposite party No.1 did not deliver handset ready but in July opposite party delivered the mobile set but on reaching home found she could not hear the phone call voice and again she approached opposite party No.1 but they refused to attend to complainant and again she approached another service at Ashirvad Mobile Service, Mangalore Ex.C4 is the service slip issued by them it is dated 03.06.2015 the nature of complaint showed is speaker complaint. Ex.C5 is bill issued by Ashirvad Mobile Service in respect of attending on speaker complaint of Rs.200/. Thus it is clear that the dates mentioned by complainant did not tally. Assuming for a moment that there is an error committed by complainant in mentioning the dates as there is only one legal notice.
7. The opposite party in the version as well as in the notes of arguments and in the affidavit mentions the complaint made by the complainant in respect of damage to the charging connector of the hand set and when it was handed-over after repairs it was not in perfectly working condition. However Ex.C3 issued by opposite party does not mention of any defect in the connecting wire. It mentions only about charging socket damage. Hence the stand of opposite party in the version, affidavit, evidence and notes of argument is inconsistent about Ex.C3. On the other hand complainant established by producing Ex.C4 the service slip issued by Ashirvad Mobile Service Centre and Ex.C6 the repair charges paid by complainant to M/s Ashirvad Mobile Service. Thus it is clear the opposite party did not mention the real facts. In fact the claim made by complainant of missing speaker and on complaint repair the mobile hand set and when she approached the service centre of opposite party No.1 again the men at opposite party No.1 refused to attend complaint hence in any case this is not controverted. Hence complainant proved deficiency in service in view of Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 attended by Ashirvad Mobile Service. Hence we answer point No. 2 in the affirmative.
8. POINTS No. (iii): As to assessing the compensation is concerned complainant claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/ as compensation. Considering the nature of the inconvenience caused to complainant to repair handset cost of Rs.200/ spent. Opposite party No.2 in the version mentions there is takeover of that company by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Hence in the title sheet opposite party No.2s name shall be as Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Hence in the title sheet change is effected instead of as shown in the complaint.
9. Opposite parties No.1 and No.2 jointly and severally is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/ as compensation towards harassment, tension to complainant inclusive of cost of the proceeding. Wherefore the following
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed. Opposite parties No.1 and No.2 jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.200/ (Rupees Two hundred only) to complainant as amount spent towards repair.
2. Opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation to complainant which shall include the cost of the case.
3. Opposite parties shall pay the above amounts within 30 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. In case failure to pay the above amounts within stipulated time opposite parties shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment to complainant.
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 8 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 20th June 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 Mrs. Shantha
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Original Notice dated 25.05.2015
Ex.C2: Original Postal Acknowledgement (2 in Nos.)
Ex.C3: Xerox copy of service job sheet dated 07 May 2015
Ex.C4: Xerox copy of service slip dated 03.06.2015
Ex.C5: Original bill dated 06.06.2015
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Mr. Priyank Chauhan, Authorized Signatory of Sony India Pvt Ltd
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 20.06.2017: PRESIDENT
