DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:30 of 2012] Date of Institution : 18.01.2012 Date of Decision : 16.05.2012 Sh. Anuj Karol resident of House No.2951, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. VERSUS [1] Indira Enterprises, SCO No.1039, Sector 22-B, (Opp. Main Bus Stand), Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Partner. [2] Sony Ericsson India, Accel Care Centre, Modern Hitech Systems, SCO No.179-180, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Head. [3] Sony Ericsson, Mobile Communication India Private Limited, 4th Floor, Dhawa House, 18/17, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. OPs already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Anuj Karol has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed:- i) To refund a sum of Rs.23,850/- being the Invoice Price of the defective mobile; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. iv) To award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 13.02.2011, he purchased a Sony Ericsson Mobile X10i Luster white from OP No.1 vide Bill No.10521 worth Rs.23,850/-. Soon after its purchase, the said mobile handset started giving screen problems and getting switched off during calls coupled with other number of problems like low battery backup, charging taking too much time, restart, receiving and no calling problem. It is averred that the said mobile handset was having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. The complainant contacted OPs No.1 and 2, who assured that they would be taking up the matter with OP No.3 for replacement of the defective mobile handset. According to the complainant, even after approaching OP No.2 for repair of the mobile handset number of times vide Job Cards dated 14.10.2011, 17.10.2011, 13.12.2011, the defects have not been removed and rather the mobile handset has suffered more problems. It is averred that OP No.2 took the mobile handset and assured that it would replace the same through OP No.3 within a period of 10 days as per the warranty clause. According to the complainant, till date, the defective mobile handset has not been replaced by the OPs. The complainant also served a notice dated 22.11.2011 upon the OPs for settling of complaint but to no avail. According to the complainant, selling the defective mobile handset by the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. Notices were duly served upon OPs No.1 and 2 through Process Server. However, none appeared on their behalf on 15.03.2012. Therefore, OPs No.1 and 2 were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.03.2012. Notice sent to OP No.3 through registered post on 21.03.2012 was not received back till 02.05.2012. As more than 30 days had already expired and since none appeared on behalf of OP No.3, so, it was also ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.05.2012. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also have perused the record. 5. From the perusal of Bill dated 13.02.2011 (Annexure C-1), it is proved that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from OP No.1 (Indira Enterprises) for Rs.23,850/-. Annexures C-2 to C-6 are the copies of job cards dated 14.10.2011, 17.10.2011, 13.12.2011. The “Problem Description’ on all these job cards is common i.e. “DEAD, BATTERY BACKUP LOW, PHONE TURNS OFF AND RESTARTS BY ITSELF, CHARGING TAKE SO MUCH TIME, RESTART, RECEIVE, NO CALLING. In the Job Card/Work order (Annexure C-4), the date of delivery after repair is mentioned as “Dec 2, 2011”, which means that the mobile was handed over back to the complainant after carrying out repairs after a period of more than one month. Annexure C-7 is the notice dated 22.11.2011 served upon OP No.2 by the complainant through Consumers Association Chandigarh whereby OP No.2 was requested to settle the complaint within 10 days. From bare perusal of these job cards, it is undoubtedly proved on record that the mobile handset in question was suffering from some defects, which the OPs failed to rectify to the full satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, it has to be presumed that the handset is suffering from some manufacturing defect. However, the OPs have also not replaced the said mobile handset with a new one within the warranty period despite the fact that OP was intimated about the defects many a times and the handset could not be repaired despite having been handed over to the OPs a number of times for that purpose. The averments made in the complaint are fully supported by the affidavit of the complainant. In the absence of any reply from the side of OPs, who chose not to appear before the Forum, the averments made in the complaint have also gone un-rebutted. 6. Thus, failure to repair the mobile handset in question or non refund of its price amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. 7. As the mobile set has not been repaired so far to the entire satisfaction of the complainant despite having been handed over to the OPs for this purpose, it would be presumed that there is some manufacturing defect in it. So, the complainant is entitled for refund of its price. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to OPs, jointly and severally to: - (i) refund a sum of Rs.23,850/- to the complainant being the invoice price of the mobile handset in question subject to the condition that the OP No.1 shall collect the said mobile handset from the complainant at its own costs. (ii) pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund the invoice price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.23,850/- to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum from the date of invoice i.e.13.02.2011 till actual payment whereas the amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry interest at the same rate i.e.18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.18.01.2012 till actual payment. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 16th May, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II C.C.No.30 of 2012 Argued By: Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. OPs already exparte. --- As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned to the record room. Announced. 16.05.2012. (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
