CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
CC No.274/10
Tuesday the 27th day of December, 2010.
Petitioner : P.H. Nasser,
Parayil House,
Chamampathal PO,
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Gulf Mobiles,
Pulimoood Junction,
M.C. Road, Kottayam.
2) Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication
(India) Pvt.Ltd., 4th Floor Dakha House,
18/17,W.E.A, New Delhi 110 005.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu. M. Thomas, Member.
The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Sony Ericsson C 510 mobile phone on 4/11/09 for Rs.9403.62/-. Within two months of its purchase, the said mobile phone started showing mal functioning. The complainant approached the shop and then they directed to give the mobile phone to the Doctor Fone Service Centre in the Good Shepherd Road. As per the said direction the complainant went to the above mentioned servicing centre and gave phone to them. The servicing centre opined that the said defect is due to software complaint and they updated the software and returned it back. But inspite of the said updating the very same complaints persisted and the said phone was again taken to the said servicing centre on 12/5/10. Then the servicing centre said that the alleged complaints are due to Hanging-Peeling off infront cover and opined that the front cover is defective. The opposite party promised to replace the front cover when provided from the company and gave the phone back. From that date onwards complainant’s mobile phone is remaining useless. The complainant took the said phone to the 1st opposite party and then they said that the mobile phone of this particular series are having a lot of complaints and that the defective mobile phone will be replaced by the servicing centre. On 17th June 2010 the said phone was once again entrusted to servicing centre. When the complainant reached the servicing centre on July 1st 2010 for taking the mobile phone back then they said that the front pannel can be replaced but for the rectification of other complaints a service charge of Rs.2000/- is necessary. As the petitioner demanded the service as per the warranty, they returned the mobile phone without servicing. Again the complainant went to the 1st opposite party shop and informed them about the developments. Then the first opposite party said that the defects are due to the manufacturing defects of the phone and that they are not liable to repair the said phone. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties are unfair in their trade methods and deficient in their service and the said acts caused mental agony and monetary loss to him. Hence he filed this complaint claiming the refund of the purchase price or replacement of the mobile phone along with a compensation of Rs. 6000/- and litigation cost 400/-.
Notice was served to the opposite parties but they failed to enter appearance and filed version. So the opposite parties were set expartee.
Points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A4.
Point No.1
Heard the complainant and perused the documents placed on record. The complainant deposed that he purchased Sony Ericsson C 510 mobile phone of price 9403.62/- on 4-11-09. Evidencing the said purchase he produced the original retail invoice dated 4-11-09 and it is marked as Ext.A1. The complainant further deposed that the mobile phone started showing malfunctioning within two months of its purchase. The complainant produced the original warranty card of the mobile which is marked as Ext.A2. Complainant next deposed that inspite of the several attempts made by the servicing centre to repair the phone, it was not repaired. Evidencing the various servicings done by the complainant, he produced the original job cards supplied by the Sony Ericsson servicing centre and they are marked as Ext.A3, A4 and A5 respectively. The complainant alleged that, as the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects he suffered loss of use of mobile phone. The complainant next averred that the acts of opposite parties are unfair and their service is deficient. As the opposite parties chose not to contest the allegations levelled against them remain unchallenged. From the facts and circumstances of the case we find the act of opposite parties in supplying a defective phone after receiving Rs.9403.62/- is a clear case of deficiency in service. In our opinion what had happened would have definitely caused mental agony, loss of use of phone and monetary loss to the complainant and therefore the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is ordered as follows.
The opposite parties will jointly and severally replace the defective mobile phone with a brand new model or refund the purchase price of Rs.9403.62 along with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. On complying the above mentioned order the opposite parties can take back the defective mobile phone.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the above mentioned sums will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of December, 2010.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
1) Ext.A1-Original retail invoice dtd 4/11/09
2) Ext.A2-Original warranty card
3) Ext.A3-Original job card
4) Ext.A4-Original job card dtd 12/5/10
5) Ext.A5-Original job card dtd 1/7/2010
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
