2. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Authorized Person,

    Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar,

    Surajpur, Kasana Road,

    Greater Noida – U.P. – 201 306.                          … Opposite parties

              This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      26-07-11 in the presence of Sri M.V.Anand, advocate for complainant and of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, advocate for OP1, OP2 set exparte, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:  

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite parties to replace the old mobile with a new one or to refund the cost of the mobile amounting to Rs.4250/- along with interest at 12% p.a. and to pay Rs.63,000/- towards compensation for business loss, mental agony and legal expenses.

2.      The brief facts of complaint are as follows:

                The complainant purchased L.G. Mobile GB 210 Model Cell Phone on 22-07-09 and its IMEI No.3528380302 10055 for Rs.4,250/- from 1^st opposite party with one year warranty for the purpose of business transactions.  After using one month, the said mobile gave troubles like not answering the received calls, call not connected to any mobile and also shut down.  The complainant approached LG Services Show Room at Sattenapalli, who carried out some repairs and handed over to complainant.  Again after one month the same trouble arose and again the complainant approached 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party suggested the complainant to get the mobile to their service center situated at 8/1, Arundelpet, Guntur. The complainant approached the service show room, who repaired and handed over the mobile to complainant after one month saying that they changed the software board of the mobile.  Again after using the mobile for 20 days same problem arose.  The complainant being vexed with the repeated repairs got issued legal notice to opposite parties on 08-01-10 and on 13-02-10. The same was received by opposite parties and kept quite.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and are liable to compensate the complainant for loss of business and mental agony.  Hence, the complaint.

3.     The 1^st opposite party filed its version, which is brief as follows:

                The complainant got his instrument repaired (cell phone) for the first time on 12-10-09 and after upgrading the software the phone was delivered to the complainant on 13-10-09.  Subsequently, after issuance of legal notices again on 20-02-10, the complainant came to this opposite party and this opposite party upgraded the software in the phone with new version and delivered the same on the same day.  After that the complainant never came to this opposite party complaining about the cell phone.  This opposite party upgraded the software immediately on the day when it was given to him and as such the allegation that the complainant sustained business loss due to the fault in the cell phone is totally false.  The complaint suppressed the fact that he got repaired the phone after issuance of notices and he never approached this opposite party alleging fault in the cell phone.  Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint by awarding exemplary costs.

4.             The 2^nd opposite party is set exparte. The complainant and 1^st opposite party have filed their respective affidavits. Ex.A1 to A7 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B1 and B2 on behalf of 1^st opposite party were marked.             

5.      Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINTS 1 & 2

                The complainant purchased the mobile in issue on                22-07-09 (Ex.A1) with one year warranty (warranty stands upto      21-07-10).  As per the complainant, software problem occurred three times to the mobile, which gave troubles to the complainant like call not connected to any mobile, shut down, not receiving any calls etc.   The repairs were undertaken by the 1^st opposite party’s service showroom.  Even after conducting repairs, the problems in the mobile were not rectified.

7.             The 1^st opposite party in their version accepted that on two occasions i.e., on 12-10-09 (repaired and delivered on 13-10-09-as per Ex.B1) and on 20-02-10 (repaired and delivered on the same day-as per Ex.B2) conducted repairs for the mobile for the software problem. 

8.             The warranty period for the mobile is upto 21-07-10.  The two repairs occurred to the mobile i.e., on 12-10-09 and 20-02-10 are within the warranty period. Though repaired for two times the software problem of the mobile was not rectified.  The mobile in issue was sold by the opposite party might be a defective one. The opposite party committed deficiency of service by selling a defective good to the complainant. Hence, they are liable to compensate the complainant. ss

9.             In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties 1&2 are hereby directed to repair the mobile to the satisfaction of the complainant, if repair is not possible to replace; to refund cost of the mobile amounting to Rs.4,250/- to the complainant if replacement is not possible.  
2. The opposite parties 1&2 are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards legal expenses to the complainant.
3. The above orders shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amounts ordered above shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till the date of realization.  

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 2^nd day of August, 2011.     

MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For 1^st opposite parties:

                                                                                             PRESIDENT