BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 21st JUNE 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.127/2016
(Admitted on 24.03.2016)
Mr. Govindan S,
S/o Sukruthan,
Aged 46 years,
Post: Ravaneswaram,
Via-Bekal Fort,
Kasaragod District.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri SSK)
VERSUS
1. The Manager,
Reliance Retail Ltd,
SF 16.27A, 2nd Floor,
City Centre Mall, K.S. Rao Road,
Hampankatta, Mangalore 575001.
2. Chairman & Managing Director
Sony India Pvt Limited,
A-31, Mohan Co Operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi 110044.
….....OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri DRK)
(Opposite Party No.2: 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 claim he purchased a Sony X peria M4 Acqua mobile set on 04.09.2015 from opposite party No.1 but it went out of order on 19.11.2015. When it was taken to M/s Coretech service, Valencia, Mangalore he was informed that major issues and datas will be lost if repaired by informing and returned back to complainant on 26.11.2015 again on 14.12.2015 mobile set had issues and rendered useless when it was again taken to the same service centre M/s Coretech service, Valencia, Mangalore and it was informed that it was having some major issues and it will take several days for repairs. In spite of repeated request with them as well as with opposite party No.2 it was not repaired even after legal notice of 11.1.2016 hence seeks reliefs claimed in the complaint.
2. Though version filed dated on 08.12.2016 is was late and hence it was recorded as filed on 03.01.2017. In effect there is no version of opposite party.
3. Despite service of notice through RPAD opposite party No.2 not appeared hence placed ex parte.
4. In support of the above complaint Mr. Govindan S filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C8 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties not filed affidavit evidence.
5. 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 counsels for complainant filed notes of argument. Opposite party not filed notes of 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
6. POINT NO. (i): The mobile hand set in question purchased by complainant manufactured by opposite party No.2 form from opposite party No.1 the authorized dealer and thereby the relationship as consumer and service provider between the parties is established. As seen from the email exchanges and also the acknowledgment issued by the service centre to complainant indicates that there is an issue as to the mobile hand set purchased by complainant and was not attended to by opposite party No.2. Hence there is a dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
7. POINT NO. (ii): Ex.C2 is the acknowledgment issued by M/s Coretech Service to complainant dated 26th November 2015 wherein in the customer complaint there is mention made no power and in the comments Not charging battery replaced and SW done. Now working fine. Ex.C3 is service job sheet issued again by M/s Coretech Service, Mangalore to complainant with customer complaint of others, heating and battery problem dated 15th December 2015 and in the column pertaining to ASC comments are the same. Hence there is a problem with the instrument made out by the service centre.
8. Ex.C4 is the email complaint lodged by complainant to the opposite party No.2. Ex.C5 is an email in respect to the cell phone and mention in the said report email that complainants complaint pertaining to the handset is being attended to. Ex.C6 is another email by complainant dated December 31, 2015 addressed to opposite party No.2. Ex.C7 is the legal notice dated 11.01.2016 issued on behalf of complainant to opposite party thus returned as unserved. Thus it is clear a new hand mobile set purchased by complainant went out of order and was not returned to complainant and not replaced would indicate that it is because it is defective and unserviceable. Hence complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence it is a fit case to order opposite party to pay the cost of the handset of Rs.21,240/ to the complainant to opposite party No.1. Apart from this for the mental agony and hardship suffered by complainant it is a fit case to direct opposite parties to pay another sum of Rs.20,000/- and ordering to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/ cost of the litigation expenses.
9. POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following
ORDER
The complaint is allowed with cost. Opposite parties No.1 and No.2 Jointly and severally shall pay Rs.21,240/ (Rupees Twenty One thousand Two hundred Forty only) with future interest at 9% per annum from the date of legal notice i.e. 11.01.2016 till the date of payment to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties shall also pay Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation and another sum of Rs.5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation expenses 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 6 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 21st 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 Mr. Govindan S
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Copy of the invoice dated 04.09.2015
Ex.C2: Job Sheet dated 20.11.2015
Ex.C3: Job Sheet dated 15.12.2015
Ex.C4: Gmail Communication dated 25.12.2015
Ex.C5: Gmail Communication dated 29.12.2015
Ex.C6: Gmail Communication dated 31.12.2015
Ex.C7: Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 11.1.2016
Ex.C8: Postal card dated 21.01.2016
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 21.06.2017: PRESIDENT
