Date of Filing:15.09.2009<br /> Date of Order:26.10.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2213 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Yapara Chandra Sekhar<br /> H.No. 105/17, 2nd Floor, 3rd Cross<br /> Iyyappa Layout, Munnecolala<br /> Marathahalli, Bangalore 560 037 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. Global Access<br /> # 17, Ground Floor<br /> 2nd Main Road, 2nd Stage<br /> Domlur (Off. 100ft. Road Indiranagar)<br /> Bangalore 560071<br /> <br /> 2. Ovez Communications<br /> # 10, G4, Richmond Plaza<br /> Next to Nikhar Jewellers<br /> Richmond Circle<br /> Bangalore 560025 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking replacement of the cell phone.<br /> The facts of the case are that opposite party No. 1 is engaged in the business of selling cell phones to the public. Opposite party No. 2 is an authorised service centre for Sony Ericson. On 01.11.2008 the complainant purchased one Sony Ericson brand cell phone from the showroom of opposite party No. 1 with warranty period of one year vide Cash Memo No. KA / 6720. The cell phone abruptly stopped functioning in January 2009. Matter was reported to opposite party No. 1 in April 2009 due to complainant’s commitment to the profession. Defective cell phone was handed over to the Sony authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2 on 21.04.2009. Opposite party No. 2 checked the mobile and refused to fix the problem. Opposite parties have supplied defective piece. It worked hardly for two months. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to replace the cell phone with a new cell phone and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant.<br /> 2. Notice to opposite parties sent through registered post. Notice was served. When the case was set for appearance of the opposite parties on 22.10.2009 both the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 remained absent. There was no representation on their behalf. Defence version also not sent by post. Therefore, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were placed exparte. <br /> 3. Complainant was present and his submissions are heard. <br /> 4. Perused the complaint and documents.<br /> 5. The complainant has produced Tax Invoice dated 01.11.2008 of opposite party No. 1. The said invoice is for Rs. 10,200/-. Complainant has also produced service sheet of opposite party No. 2 dated 21.04.2009. He has produced the copy of warranty certificate. It is the case of the complainant that the mobile phone purchased by him abruptly stopped functioning in the month of January 2009. He approached opposite party No. 1 and as per the advice the defective cell phone was handed over to the Sony authorised service centre on 21.04.2009. But the defect was not rectified. The opposite party No. 2 did not fix the problem. The cell phone had worked hardly for two months. Therefore, the complainant really suffered mental strain and agony on account of defective product supplied by the opposite parties. It is the duty of the opposite parties to sell defect free products to the customers. The complainant having purchased new cell phone with a hope that he may enjoy the new product but unfortunately, the product did not work properly due to the manufacturing defect. The cell phone is covered under warranty. Warranty period is one year. Therefore, it becomes duty and obligation of the opposite parties to replace the cell phone with a new cell phone which would be defect free. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite parties have not appeared and contested the matter even though served with notice. The case put up by the complainant has to be accepted as true and correct. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of the consumers. The request made by the complainant for replacement of his cell phone is quite fair, just and reasonable. The complainant has sought compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and harassment. On the facts of the case it is not a fit case to grant compensation for mental agony. The ends of justice will be met in ordering opposite parties to replace defective set with a brand new cell phone of the same value purchased by the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the cell phone to the complainant with a brand new cell phone of defect free in the place of one sold to the complainant.<br /> 7. Complainant is also entitled for Rs. 500/- as costs of the present litigation from the opposite parties.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />