Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member
Complainant has purchased a Sony Mobile Model St 27i from OP no. 1 for a sum of Rs.13,200/- on 13.1.2013 vide Book No. 187, serial no. 9333 with one year warranty/guarantee.
It is alleged by the Complainant that from the day of purchase the aforesaid mobile is suffering from many problems such as hanging, battery not upto mark, over heating etc.
Complainant visited OP no. 2 and submitted his aforesaid mobile there. After few days, OP no. 2 informed the complainant that the aforesaid mobile has a manufacturing defect and the same is irreparable. After completing all the formalities, OP no. 2 replaced the mobile phone on 27.9.2013 but its warranty was not extended.
It is alleged by the complainant that after receiving the replaced mobile when he used it, he found the same problem in the new mobile also. The complainant again deposited the handset with OP no. 2 on 10.1.2014. On his visit the OP no. 2 informed the complainant that this mobile again had a manufacturing defect and the same is irreparable. OP no. 2, however has neither repaired the mobile nor replaced the same despite several visits by the complainant.
The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 26.2.2014 to the OPs but they did not reply the same. The complainant therefore approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
Op No. 3 has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has denied any deficiency in service and has claimed that the complainant did not handle the device properly as per the user manual, and was facing the problems in the handset only after his own wrongful usage, and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The complainant has placed on record a copy of the Invoice dated 13.1.2013. He has also placed a record the Job sheet dated 16.9.2013 which clearly shows that the handset in question was suffering from a manufacturing defect and the same was replaced by OP -2 on 27.9.2013. The Job Sheet dated 10.1.2014 clearly shows that replaced handset is also suffering for various defects such as hanging, , battery not upto mark, over heating etc. The OP -2 has neither refunded the money nor the mobile to the complainant till today.
In R. Sachdeva V/s ICICI Bank F.A. 762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held.
“What is the use of such goods or article if it losses its utility after a period of one month from its purchase. The object of Consumer Protection Act, is to safeguard the interest of the Consumer against the unscrupulous manufacture a trader for selling standard or defective goods.
In another case title Col. Ravinder Pal Brar v/s Asian Motors FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007, the Hon’ble State Commission held:
The dispute between the Consumer and the service provider and trader should be ended once for all by calling upon the trader and manufacture to refund the cost of goods with adequate compensation as the possibilities of new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the Consumer can not be ruled out and in that case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation.
In the light of the judgment referred above we direct OP – 3 as under
1. To refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.13,200/- as a cost of mobile.
2. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him.
3. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2500/- as a cost of litigation
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. If the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
