IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 387/09 DATED 08.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri. P.K. Shivaram S/o late Kalegowda # 9, E & F Block, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. P.K., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. Hotspots Retails Pvt. Ltd., Shop, No.10, Kalidasa Road, V.V. Mohalla, Mysore-570012.<br /> 2. ACCBL Front Line, Ltd., 515/A, 1st Floor, P & T Block, Anikethana Main Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570023. represented by its person-in-charge<br /> ( O.P.1 is Exparte, O.P.2. in person)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 22.10.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 09.11.2009<br /> Date of order : 08.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 29 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to repair the mobile handset or else to replace to new one and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, on 09.01.2009, complainant purchased Sony Ericsson mobile handset Model 3501 u1 from the first opposite party and it was represented by the opposite party that, there is one year warranty. Warranty certificate has been issued. The said handset has manufacturing defect. It is not displaying anything from first week of February 2009. The complainant approached the first opposite party, who rejected to receive the handset and to rectify the defect or replace new one. A legal notice dated 07.03.2009, was issued to first opposite party. There was no reply. With difficulty the complainant ascertained the second opposite party and approached to get the handset repaired. The second opposite party checkup the handset and gave an endorsement dated 26.03.2009, stating that, crack in display and it is not covered under warranty. It is alleged that, the opposite parties are bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party despite the service of notice, has remained exparte.<br /> <br /> 4. The second opposite party, in the version, pleaded ignorance in respect of certain allegations in the complaint and it is contended that, when this opposite party checked the handset on 26.03.2009 noticed crack on display, which is physical damage and such damage is not covered under the warranty. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand the second opposite party filed his affidavit. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of both or any one of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 8. Point no. 1:- The fact that, the complainant purchased Sony Ericsson mobile handset from the first opposite party is established from the evidence on record.<br /> <br /> 9. In the complaint it is alleged that, from first week of February 2009, the handset is not displaying anything. The second opposite party service center, has stated that, when it checked the handset, noticed crack on the display, which is a physical damage and it is not covered under the warranty.<br /> <br /> 10. Considering the facts, the grievance of the complainant is that, the handset is not displaying anything has been established. The alleged crack is not seriously disputed by the complainant. However, during the course of arguments, the second opposite party pointed out the small crack line on the screen. But, nothing is on record that, because of said small crack line on the screen, the hand set is not displaying anything. Consequently, we have to hold that, something is wrong with the handset.<br /> <br /> 11. The second opposite party is admittedly service center and during the warranty period it is bound to rectify the mistake or problem with the handset and has to make it in working condition. The second opposite party need not repair or remove the said small crack on the screen, but as noted above, the second opposite party is bound to repair the handset so that it could work.<br /> <br /> 12. From first opposite party, the complainant has purchased the handset, has remained exparte, but considering the facts, the second opposite party service center is bound to repair the same. More over, the prayer of the complainant is also to repair the handset. Of course, the complainant has made alternative prayer for replacement of the handset. That would arise in case, the handset is beyond repair.<br /> <br /> 13. Accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 14. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The second opposite party is hereby directed to repair the handset in question and make it in working condition within 15 days from the date of the order without unreasonable delay on the request made by the complainant.<br /> 3. The complainant shall approached the second opposite party well in time.<br /> 4. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the cost of proceedings to the complainant within 15 days from the date of the order.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 8th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />