BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

05^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) for replacement of defective mobile phone with brand new mobile phone or in the alternative to refund the amount with interest and Rs.10,000/- towards travel expenses, mental agony and such other reliefs on the allegations of deficiency in service.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

On 10.11.2012 the complainant visited the shop of OP-1 to purchase a mobile for his daily requirements like to use internet, games, news, for entertainment and making calls.  Complainant has selected mobile i.e., model No.INTELX900BLK, Black colour and brand name Intel based on the assurances given in respect of performance by OP-1.  Complainant purchased the said mobile from OP-1 on 10.11.2012 for Rs.17,500/- vide invoice No.234176592 with one year warranty for any defects.

During the month of May 2013 the phone started to malfunction and there were touch screen defects.  After noticing the problems/defects, the complainant took the mobile phone for repairs to OP-1.  OP-1 told the complainant to give the same to OP-2 as they are the authorized service centre on behalf of company.  As per the directions of OP-1, complainant went to the OP-2 and handed over the mobile for service/repair to be done in order to work the mobile properly.  OP-2 has issued acknowledgement on 25.05.2013 and the complaint ID is 310000047325.  OPs.1 & 2 have assured that the said mobile will be returned within a week by doing necessary service/repairs.  After one week complainant approached OP-2 to collect the mobile phone, the OP-2 told that the mobile phone is sent to Mumbai for repairs and asked the complainant to call the No.180030100104 (call centre).  Complainant has called the number and got the reply that the mobile phone will be sent by courier within 15 days.  But the complainant has not received the mobile phone within the said period.  Again the complainant called for several times but the reply is same.

Complainant visited several times to the offices of both OPs.1 & 2 and requested to return the mobile with proper functioning apart from phone calls.  But both OPs failed to return the same with proper functioning till date.  The complainant suffered mental agony, financial loss and deprived to avail the best services from the said mobile due to defective mobile and negligent attitudes for doing services in time by the OPs.  Inspite of several reminders over phone and personal visits to the OPs by the complainant, OPs failed to return the mobile phone by doing necessary service/repairs to the complainant in time.  Due to the negligent acts of OPs, the complainant has spent huge amount for visiting the offices of OPs apart from several phone calls.  On 23.10.2013 complainant got issued the legal notice to OPs.  But there was no reply from the OPs.

For the aforesaid reasons, complainant prays for directing OPs to replace mobile phone with new handset or refund the amount with interest, pay sum of Rs.10,000/- towards travel expenses, mental agony, towards charges of legal notices and such other reliefs as deems fit.   

3. The notice of complaint was issued to the OPs and despite service of notice, the OPs failed to appear and contest the complaint and has been placed ex-parte.  Thereafter, the complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence together with documents and also his written submission.

4. Perused the averments made in the complaint, affidavit filed in lieu of evidence, written arguments, documents filed by the complainant and other materials placed on record.

5. Admittedly the complainant purchased a Intel mobile model No.INTELX900BLK from OP-1 on 10.11.2012 by paying a sum of Rs.17,500/-.  The said mobile handset is covered by one year warranty.  Admittedly within the warranty period i.e., in the month of May 2013 the complainant started facing problem with the said handset that the functioning of the mobile phone was not good and it started malfunctioning and there was touch screen defects.  So after noticing the said problems/defects, he handed over the said handset to OP-1 M/s.Spice Retail Ltd., in turn OP-1 advised the complainant to approach the authorized service centre i.e., OP-2 M/s.Quick Connect, #542, CMH Road, Indiranagar, II Stage, Bangalore.  As per the advice of OP-1, complainant went to the address of OP-2 and handed over the mobile phone for necessary service/repairs.  OP-2 issued the acknowledgement to the complainant on 25.05.2013 and assured that the said handset will be returned within a week by doing necessary service/repairs.

 6. However after completion of one week the complainant went to the service centre of OP-2 to collect the mobile phone.  At that time OP-2 told that the mobile phone was sent to Mumbai for repairs and gave him the call centre number 180030100104.  Complainant called the said number and got the reply that the mobile phone will be sent by courier within 15 days.  But complainant has not received the mobile phone within the said period.  Complainant visited several times to the offices of both the OPs and requested them to return the mobile with proper functioning apart from making phone calls.  But OPs failed to return the same with proper functions till date.  The complainant was made to run to the service center frequently without any results.

7. Due to the negligent acts of OPs, the complainant has spent huge amount for visiting the offices of both the OPs apart from making several phone calls.  Despite efforts made by the complainant by communicating the concerned office of the OPs.1 & 2 he could not get back his handset on time.  Even the complainant has got issued legal notice to the OPs through advocate on 23.10.2013 but there was no reply from the OPs.  It is pertinent to note here that despite retaining the handset with them for long time, OPs failed to repair the handset.  Admittedly the OP-2 is still retaining the handset with him which means that he is unable to resolve the defects in the handset till today.  The handset in question had defects which the OPs failed to rectify.  The material placed on record by the complainant also goes to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8. The handset is covered with one year warranty.  The mobile handset has been purchased on 10.11.2012 and within very short time i.e., in the month of May 2013 the handset started malfunctioning with touch screen defects.  OP-1 was though not liable to get the handset repaired but as a good will gesture helped the complainant and getting it repaired through OP-2 the authorized service center.  The complainant having paid a sum of Rs.17,500/- for purchasing the said handset, he is unable to use and enjoy the same even within the warranty period.  The defect in the handset could not be resolved in the authorized service center.  Therefore, it is evident that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP-2.  The OPs.1 & 2 are responsible for replacing the said handset with a new handset or return the price of the handset to the complainant.

9. The problem with the handset occurred during the warranty period the OPs have also failed to provide satisfactory service to the complainant in attending the defects occurred in the said handset.  Due to the defect in the handset, the complainant could not make use of the handset even for 5-6 months.    The handset which was given to OP-2 was not returned to the complainant till today.  It is the duty of OP-2 to return the handset to the complainant.  But the OP-2 did not do so.  The complainant was unable to make use of the handset and this has been put him to great hardship and inconvenience.  Certainly he must have suffered mental agony because of the non performance of the handset within a short time after its purchase.  The OPs.1 & 2 did not appear and contest the claim of the complainant.  We do not find any reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant. 

10. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be allowed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

       O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OPs.1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to replace the mobile handset in question with a brand new handset or return Rs.17,500/- to the complainant being the price of the mobile handset.  Further OPs.1 & 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part together with litigation costs of Rs.3,000/-.

OPs shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 05^th day of November 2015)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

COMPLAINT NO.1191/2014

Complainant                 -        Sri. Ramesh,

Bangalore-560 037.

                                          -vs-

Opposite Parties           -        1) M/s. Spice Retail Ltd.,

Bangalore-560 038.

(Represented by its Manager)

2) M/s. Quick Connect
            (Service Centre)

Bangalore-560 038.

(Represented by its Manager)

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 21.11.2014.

1. Sri. Ramesh,

          OPs.1 & 2        -       Absent

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*