O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone make SONY D 5322 XPERIA T2 (BLACK) with IMEI NO.351867062822801 for a sum of Rs.24,990/- from OP-2 on 27.4.2014. It is alleged that after two days the above said mobile phone did not work properly. Complainant made complaint to the service centre. It is alleged that despite business of the complainant, on 11.6.2014 he approached OP-3 regarding the said defected mobile phone and as per his advice mobile phone was handed over to the OP-3. It is alleged that after repairs the mobile phone was delivered to the complainant on 18.6.2014. It is alleged in the complaint that at the time of delivery of said phone , OP-3 has changed its mother board and also replaced the genuine Camera of mobile phone without knowledge of complainant while the previous Camera was of good quality. It is alleged that despite replacement of mother board of the said mobile phone was not functioning well. It is alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 21.6.2014. On these facts complainant filed the complaint on 28.7.2014 praying that OPs be directed to pay the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs.24,990/-, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and sufferings and also Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest @ 25% p.a.
2. OPs appeared and filed their written statement. In its written statement OPs have not disputed that complainant purchased a mobile phone of SONY D 5322 XPERIA T2 (BLACK) vide IMEI NO.351867062822801 for a sum of Rs.24,990/- from the OP-2 on 27.4.2014. It is stated that mobile handset was put under several checks and inspection and the same was found to be in OK condition. However, for satisfaction of the complainant and to ensure smooth functioning of the mobile handset its mother board was replaced with new one. It is stated that a service mobile handset was also provided to the complainant till such time the handset was at the service centre. It is stated that the complainant served a legal notice dated 21.6.2014 upon the OPs without raising any further grievance with the customer care of OPs. It is stated that the OPs even after tried to contact the complainant to resolve his grievance and an engineer was sent at complainant’s office but complainant refused to meet him saying he was busy. It is stated that despite several phone calls complainant did not bother to respond the calls of OPs. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence reiterating all the facts made in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. Urfee Haider, Sr. Executive of OPs have filed affidavit alongwith documents in support of its case.
4. We have heard both the Ld. Counsels at length and perused the documents placed on the file. It is not disputed that the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant from the OP-2 on 27.4.2014. It is also not disputed that the mobile handset was given for solving problems on 11.6.2014 to OP-3 and the same was returned after repairs on 18.6.2014. It is evident from the documents placed on the file that complainant was provided mobile handset as standby/service phone during the period his mobile phone remained with the authorized service centre. The complainant has placed copy of legal notice dated 21.6.2014 which was issued to the OPs. In the notice, the complainant has stated that on 1.4.2014 and 8.4.2014 the mobile phone was not functioning properly. Although, the mobile phone was purchased on 27.4.2014. In the complaint however, in these dates have been mentioned as 1.5.2014 and 8.5.2014. The OPs have submitted that the camera of the mobile phone was never changed by the OPs. The complainant has not brought on record any technical report in this regard. During the course of trial this Forum at the stage of argument, got the mobile handset delivered to OPs for repairs on 6.4.2015 and same was delivered to the complainant on 5.8.2015. At the time of delivery of mobile handset, the complainant sought time for checking of proper functioning of mobile handset. The mobile phone purchased by the complainant remains with the complainant and is using the same without any further complaint.
5. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there were some problems in the mobile phone which was ultimately removed by the OPs. The complainant is claiming the cost of mobile phone @ Rs.24,990/-. Since the mobile phone was purchased on 27.4.2014 and it remained with the OP-3(Service Centre) for removing the problems for about 4 months, we find that there is deficiency in service by the OPs.
6. Since the complainant is a professional and the services of mobile phone are essential for day to day functioning of the professional, are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the complainant is awarded a sum of Rs.4000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) on account of deficiency in service.
7. Complainant is further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment which amount shall also include cost of litigation. This amount shall be payable within 45 days from the date of order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 6@% till its realization. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 16th day of December, 2015.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
