ORDER

V. K. DABAS, MEMBER

      In brief, the case of the complainant is that she had purchased a mobile phone, model no. C-2004 Sony Xperia from OP1 manufactured by OP2 for a sum of Rs. 12,800/- on 13-12-2013 vide invoice no. 6970 with a warranty of one year.  It is alleged by the complainant that she noticed various defects in the said mobile i.e. non functioning of camera and power button and frequent hanging of the mobile set. The complainant allegedly visited the service center of OP2 and deposited the mobile phone for rectification of the defects.  She took the delivery of the phone after four days i.e. on 14.4.2014 after repairs.  It is further alleged by the complainant that the same defects occurred again in the mobile. The complainant again visited the service center of OP2 and requested for repalacement of the mobile phone so that her work does not suffer but  her request was turned down  by the OP.

    The Ops contested the complaint and filed their written statement. In the written statement, it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer as she is using the phone for commercial purpose. It is further submitted by the OP that the complainant had approached the OP for repairs only in April 2014 and had not approached the OP ever since. It is further submitted by the OP that it proves the fact that the complainant had been using the mobile without any problem since 2014 and the allegation of the complainant that she had made repeated visits are fabricated. It is further submitted by the OP that it had already written a letter dated 28.2.2015 for bringing her phone for inspection so that any job needed to be done could be done. It is also submitted by the OP that the complainant has failed to file any expert report to prove any manufacturing defect in the handset.

  The complainant has filed her evidence along with rejoinder to the reply filed by the OP. In the rejoinder the complainant has submitted that she is a consumer as per section 2 (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act as she used the mobile for her personal and professional use to ear her livelihood by means of self employment. It is further submitted by the complainant that the report of the service center of OP2 itself serves the purpose of expert opinion.  Also it is submitted by the complainant that the process of OP2 at its service center is very cumbersome. Para (e) of the rejoinder is relevant for deciding the complaint and is reproduced as under:

E. It is submitted that it is the process of opposite party No. 2 at its service centre that every time when any complainant approaches to service centre he/she firstly has to wait for one or two hour for their no.in the queue ,then they have to deposit their mobile phone for atleast four days at the service centre as many times as they go for its service and then they have to again wait for one or two hour when they go for taking its delivery from the service centre. That is why Complainant after knowing all their processes ,requested for the replacement of her mobile phone when it again suffered from the same defects and problems to the officer incharge at the service centre of opposite party No. 2 as Complainant could not left the phone for four or five days again and again and was not in a position to take rounds of service centre again and again as she is a professional and has to go to different courts for work .But when the occurrence of defects became frequent ,complainant purchased another mobile phone for her and kept the defective mobile phone at her house .It is hereby submitted that the present complaint is maintainable before this Ld. Forum in order to give natural justice to the complainant .

  In the evidence , the complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint by way of affidavit and has filed on record receipt of the purchase issued by M/s Ashoka Electronics dated 13.12.2013, warranty certificate , retail invoice of the service center dated 11.4.2014 depicting delivery date 14.4.2014 and pictures taken with the handset camera. Ops have also reiterated the contents of the written statement by way of affidavit in their evidence.

  We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

  As per the case of the complainant duly supported by her  affidavit, the mobile handset did not give the required service and started giving trouble soon after its purchase and the complainant deposited the handset with the service center of OP2 on 11.4.2014 for rectifying the defect.  Though the service center of the manufacturer attended to  the complaint and repaired the mobile handset but even them the mobile handset did not work properly.  The complainant visited the service center of OP2 again and made a request to replace the mobile so that her work does not suffer but it was also turned down by the OP. 

 In R. Sachdev Vs. ICICI Bank, FA762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held:

”what is the use of such goods or article if it looses its utility after   a period of one month of its purchase and the objects of the Consumer Protection Act, is to safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufactures or traders for selling sub-standard or defective goods”

In another case titled Col. Ravinder Pal BrarVs. Asian Motors, FA 71/06 decided on 28.9.2007 the Hon’ble State Commission held:

“the disputes between the consumer and the service providers and traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders and the manufactures to refund the cost of the goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumers, can not be ruled out and in that case parties will relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation”.

  The complainant is a practicing advocate. Immediately after the purchase of the handset, she had found that the handset was not functioning properly. She had taken the handset to the service centre where it was kept for a period of four days. She was not promised with another handset by the service centre. After she had received the handset from the service centre, it had again  developed some faults. She had , therefore, lost faith in the product and had , therefore , requested for its replacement. Being a professional it was difficult for the complainant to work without a handset and therefore she was justified in seeking the replacement of the same.  This proposition was approved in the judgment quoted by us above.

In the light of the above facts/ discussion we are of the considered opinion that Op2  is guility of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly we direct OP2 as under:-

1. Pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs 12,800/- as cost of the mobile .

2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for pain and agony which also includes the cost of litigation

3. The complainant shall return the handset after receiving payment.

The OP2 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 OP2 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.....................