PRESENT: Sh. Sumit Sheokand, Adv. for the Complainant.

           OP No. 1 Deleted.

           OP No. 2 Ex-parte.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, Complainant purchased a Sony Ericcsion Mobile phone on 21.1.2008 (Model: K-7501) from Bhavya Collection, Shop No. 45-46, Navdeep Market, Pehowa, Kurukshetra, vide bill as at Annexure c-1. On 5.8.2008, it developed some malfunction and used to hang in the camera mode & used to fail to respond, causing a lot of problem to the Complainant. Since the set was under warranty, the Complainant took the same to OP No. 2 (authorized service center), which retained the set for removing the defects and delivered it back to the Complainant on 7.11.2008 i.e. after a period of more than 03 months with the assurance that the fault has been removed. Accordingly, the Complainant took the phone back and started using it. Some days later, he again started having the same trouble with the mobile hand set, which was immediately reported to OP No. 2 on 15.1.2009 (Annexure P-2), which again retained the handset and asked the Complainant to come after 10-15 days to take back the mobile handset. On 30.1.2009, when he went to take delivery of the handset, OP No. 2 sought another 10 days to remove the defect. It was alleged that the Complainant thereafter repeatedly approached the OP No. 2 for taking delivery of the handset, but was refused delivery every time on one account or the other, causing great hardship to the Complainant, as he had to come all the way from Village Jajanpur, District Kaithal for the purpose, which according to the Complainant tantamounts to grave deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, through this complaint the Complainants have prayed for the following reliefs:-

i)  to reimburse the Complainant with the cost price of the mobile handset Rs.7,800/- along with counsel fee Rs.5,000/- and along with costs.

ii) to grant Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to the Complainant by the OPs by not returning the phone set in time to Complainant.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]      As far as OP No. 1 is concerned, its name was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, on the basis of a request from the Complainant and as per a separate zimni order dated 30.11.2009.

4]      OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte on 30.11.2009. 

5]      Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions and the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant argued the case.

6]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant (OP No.1 having been deleted from the array of OPs and OP No.2 being ex-parte). As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having purchased a Sony Ericcsion Mobile Phone on 21.1.2008 (Model:7501) from M/s Bhavya Collection, Kurukshetra, vide Bill for Rs.7800/- as at Annexure C-1. On 5.8.2008 and that it developed some defects, for which it was sent to OP No. 2 – the Service Centre of OP No.1, have all been established.  It is also quite clear that the handset was returned to the Complainant after a period of more than 03 months by OP No. 2 after completing the repair work, but still the handset was having one problem or the other. One of the troubles in the set was that it used to hang in the Camera mode and also failed to respond. As per the Complainant, even after 07.11.2008, he repeatedly approached OP No. 2 for removal of the defects, but nothing was done to remove the alleged defects. All this has caused a tremendous amount of physical harassment and mental agony to the Complainant, who had spent nearly Rs.8000/- to purchase the new handset, but the same did not give efficient service, even during the warranty period of one year.

ii] During the course of proceedings, while the name of OP No. 1 was deleted vide order dated 30.11.2009, OP No. 2 remained absent right from the beginning and was subsequently, proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 30.11.2009. Since OP No. 2, which is the main party in the present case, remained absent and did not present its case in its defence, we have no reason to disbelieve the version put up by the Complainant in his pleadings in the complaint, as well as in the affidavit filed by him. The Complainant has given adequate proof of having purchased a brand new handset of Sony Ericcsion (Model: K-7501) from M/s Bhavya Collection, Pehowa, Kurukshetra, by paying a cash amount of Rs.7800/- and has also enclosed a job card, showing the exact defect in the handset. From these documents and in the absence of any defence put up by the OPs, it is quite clear that the OPs have failed to provide an efficient and effective service to the Complainant, which he was entitled to. Therefore, it is clearly established that the OPs, especially, OP No. 2 has been deficient in rendering service and has also indulged in an unfair trade practice by not attending to the requests made by the Complainant for removal of defects in the handset from time to time. As per the Complainant, not only the OPs refused to remove the defects, but also threatened the Complainant, saying that he can do whatever he likes. Even after the lapse of 07 months, the defects pointed out by the Complainant in the handset were not removed by the OPs. 

7]      In view of the above detailed analysis of the case, it is our considered view that OP No.2 is deficient in service and has also indulged in an unfair trade practice. The present complaint has a lot of weight, merit and substance and deserves acceptance in favour of the Complainant and against the OP No. 2. We, therefore, allow the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against OP No. 2 and pass the following order: -

(i) OP No. 2 shall replace the defective handset with a brand new defect free handset with the same make and model, failing which OP No. 2 shall refund the entire price of the handset i.e. Rs.7800/-.

(ii) OP No. 2 shall also pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant.

(iii) OP No. 2 shall pay the litigation cost of Rs.4000/- to the Complainant.

8]      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP No.2 shall pay the sum of  Rs.5,000/- / Rs.12,800/-, as the case may be, along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 8.7.2009, till the date of realization, besides cost of litigation of Rs.4,000/-.

9]                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.