Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

By this Appeal, Appellant/Complainant has challenged the Order dated 28-01-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 505/2015 whereby the complaint has been partly allowed. 

In a short compass, case of the Complainant, is that, he purchased a mobile handset of M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. from the showroom of Lalani e-Tech City at a cost of Rs. 34,003/- on 03-01-2014.  On 25-11-2014, the handset developed certain problems for which he took the said handset to the authorized service centre of the said company  at Princep Street Kolkata.  After replacing the mother board, the handset was returned to him by the said service centre.  However, after few days, the said handset again malfunctioned and so he again took the handset to the service centre for due repairing on 23-12-2014.  As ill luck would have it, after some days, another problem cropped up with the handset.  So, on 03-02-2015, it was again handed over to the authorized service centre of the OP, who demanded service charge for a sum of Rs. 112/-.  Feeling dejected, the Complainant ranged up OP No. 2 on 04-02-2015 and 05-02-2015.  He also lodged a written complaint in this regard. On 10-02-2015, he deposited the mobile handset with the service centre of the OPs for doing necessary repairing.  After much dilly dallying, the said service centre returned the handset to the Complainant on 07-03-2015.  Unfortunately, on the very next day, the handset again became totally defunct.  So, the Complainant immediately informed the matter to the OPs.  On 10-03-2015, as per the advice of Mr. Debnath (ASM, LG), the Complainant handed over the defective mobile set to the authorized service centre of the company situated at Baguihati.  Allegedly, after receiving the handset, the service centre simply kept quiet. Several perseverance of the matter with the concerned authorities in this regard went in vain.  Finding no other alternative, Complainant filed the instant complaint.

By filing a W.V., it is contended by the OPs that time and again the Complainant deposited the phone on one pretext or the other.  Although the OPs tried their best to satisfy the Complainant, it seemed the Complainant had made up his mind not to co-operate with them.  Stating that the job sheets themselves speak volumes of the kind of service rendered by the OPs, they prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point to be decided is whether the impugned order is justified or not.

Decision with reasons

Admittedly, the Appellant purchased the mobile handset in question on 03-01-2014.  It is not in dispute that the said handset was given to the authorized service centre of the Respondent Company on 28-11-2014, 23-12-2014, 03-02-2015, 10-02-2015, 10-03-2015 for repairing different sorts of problems that the Appellant faced with the said handset. 

We find that although the Respondents have claimed that they attended to the problems of the Appellant on a war footing, most surprisingly, they have neither mentioned the dates nor placed on record copies of job sheets that would have manifested the extent of promptitude with which Respondents served the Appellant.

Further, although it is alleged by the Respondent that the Appellant did so with an ulterior motive to disgrace them, we have not come across even a solitary piece of document to show that the Appellant ever made false allegation in respect of the mobile handset in question.

Let us candidly admit that mobile has become an integral part of our everyday life nowadays; it is no longer considered as a luxury item.  Therefore, in case a mobile handset becomes defunct in quick succession, the very purpose of having the same no doubt gets defeated. 

We cannot be unmindful of the fact that the Appellant had to spend a good fortune to have the handset.  Yet, he was subjected to so much inconvenience.  May be the problems faced by him were of different nature.  However, that cannot make light of the fact that he had to face enormous difficulty with the handset. There is no reason to believe that it gives one pleasure/mental satisfaction spending hours together visiting service centres setting aside other assignments/works, not to speak about incidental expenses one has to incur on account of conveyance, phone calls, postage etc. 

It appears, the Ld. District Forum did not deem it necessary to pass an award for replacement of the disputed handset out of its conviction that the Appellant used the handset for more than 10 months.  In our considered opinion, however, this cannot be an excuse to cold shoulder rendering proper justice to an aggrieved customer. 

It hardly makes economic sense to burn a deep hole in one’s pocket to use a mobile handset just for 10/12 months.  People go for costly branded items out of their ardent hope that it would give them hassle free service for a considerable period of time.  A mobile handset that comes at a premium yet cannot sustain the wear and tear for even a year, is nothing but an apology of a product.  Incidentally, no such allegation is made from the side of the Respondents that the problems cropped up due to mishandling of the handset. 

As a manufacturer, Respondents cannot shrug off due responsibility to ensure that their products conform to highest standard of quality norms so that users of such products enjoy hassle free service for long.  Looking from this aspect, the Respondents did a great disservice to the Appellant. 

Although it is claimed by the Respondents that the mobile handset is lying ready with them duly repaired, if we take into consideration the abortive attempts of service centres to make the handset operational for long, there is no certainty that this time there would be any exception.

We, therefore, feel that in order to bury the hatchet once for all the Respondents should replace the defective handset with a new handset of similar specification or return the price of the mobile phone.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That A/160/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondents.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Respondents shall jointly and severally replace the disputed handset with a new handset of similar specification having warranty for a period of one year from the date of handing over the new handset to the Appellant.  In case handset of similar specification is not readily available, Respondents shall refund the price of the handset to the Appellant.  The Respondents shall comply with this order within 45 days hence.  Rest of the impugned order shall remain unaltered.