BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Kirpal Singh s/o Sh. Bal Krishan r/o H.No.1445/12, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh.

              ….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Hot Spot Retail Ltd., Booth No.302, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

2.      M/s Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Private Limited, 4^th Floor, Dakha House 18/17, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi, through its Head/Incharge.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                          PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL                          MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA           MEMBER

Argued by:   Complainant in person

Sh. Vikas Awasthy, Adv. for OP-1

OP-2 exparte.

PER DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER        Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a Sony Ericsson F 305 mobile from OP-1 but the same started giving problem soon after purchase.  The mobile set used to hang and the screen did not work.  It has been alleged that he gave the set 5 times to OP-1 with the same problem but still they could not rectify the same and even the set is lying with them.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 admitted the purchase of the mobile set.  However, it has been submitted that the warranty under care pack started from 30.12.2009 upto 29.12.2010.  It has been denied that the answering OP told the complainant that the warranty was going to expire on 30.12.2009. It has been pleaded that the complainant had given the handset to the authorized service center of Sony Ericsson and repair services were provided by them.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             OP-2 did not appear despite due service, hence it was proceeded against exparte.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and Learned Counsel for OP-1 and have also perused the record. 

6.             It is the contention of the complainant that he purchased a mobile handset of Sony Ericson, F 305 from OP-1 vide retail invoice serial no. 572 dated 30.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.8700/-. Annexure (now marked as C-2) shows that the complainant had paid Rs.600/- towards care pack validity which carried a warranty of 24 months, which in this case would expire on 29.12.2010. Annexures (now marked as C-4 to C-8) show that the above said mobile started giving problem during the period of warranty and the complainant took the mobile for necessary repair on 5.11.2009, 19.11.2009, 4.12.2009 as well as on  17.12.2009 to the OP. The contention of the complainant is that the mobile phone in question is not functioning properly and has been taken to the service centre of the OP a number of times as mentioned above for making it in working condition but OP-1 has failed to do it. Since the mobile phone in question is within the warranty period, it is the duty of the OPs to attend to the complaint and do the necessary repair, which they have miserably failed in their duty, as a result, causing harassment to the complainant. A customer purchases the phone to  make use of the same but if it does not work then it causes not only harassment to the customer but also is a source of mental harassment and loss because even after spending money on additional care pack warranty, he has not been able to get the phone repaired. The complainant had landed the defective mobile phone in the service centre of the OP-1 number of times but the OPs have failed to rectify the defect of the said mobile. It appears that there is some inherent manufacturing defect which is beyond economical repair.

7.              As the mobile set was still under warranty, it is the responsibility of the OP-1 and OP-2 to get the said mobile set repaired at their own expenses and deliver it to the complainant in proper functioning condition, which in the present case has not been done.  The OPs have tried their level best to rectify the defect in the mobile phone but they could not.  It seems that there is an inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile phone in question which is beyond economical repair. There is thus negligence and deficiency on the part of the OPs in not repairing the mobile hand set or in alternative not replacing it with the new set within the warranty period.  Despite service, none appeared for OP No.2, which showed that OP-2 has nothing to say in his defence, against the contentions of the complainant.  

8.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving that there was deficiency in service rendered by the OPs. The complaint therefore succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Therefore, the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.8700/- alongwith Rs.5,000/- consolidated cost as compensation and litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 30.12.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.