O R D E R

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – 1):

                        Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

           2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:  Complainant purchased a ‘Sony Xperia’ Mobile on 31.12.2013 by paying Rs.26,990/- from the Sony Dealer, Chennai.  1^st opposite party is the Managing Director of Madona Electronics, who is conducting authorised service centre of Sony mobile phones at Edappally and 2^nd opposite party is the Managing Director of Madona Care Centre, Thiruvalla.  2^nd opposite party is included as a party to the proceedings only for getting territorial jurisdiction.  On 27.09.2014 the speaker of the mobile phone was found defecive.  So that outgoing calls cannot done or incoming calls cannot be attended.  Complainant approached the 1^st opposite party, the same day itself and 1^st opposite party told him that the speaker is not working.  Complainant has given his mobile phone for servicing on 27.09.2014 and the 1^st opposite party assured the complainant to give the repaired phone on 08.10.2014 under warranty conditions.

            3. On 08.10.2014 complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for getting the repaired phone.  But the 1^st opposite party gave a phone which was having full of scratches and text messages of some another to the complainant instead of his mobile phone.  Complainant refused to receive the phone.  1^st opposite party admitted his mistake and told the complainant that it may be because of any misplacement occurred in arrangement of serviced phones and requested the complainant to come after a week.

            4. Thereafter several times complainant telephoned the opposite party.  But they told lame excuses.  Moreover, complainant telephoned to Sony Service Centre Toll Free No. and sent e.mail to Sony support at questions.  Then only the complainant came to know that there was a second job sheet prepared on the same matter.  Complainant got the 2^nd job sheet only on 21.11.2014 through e.mail that too was send after continuous follow ups.  In the second job sheet the date is stated as 03.11.2014 instead of ‘08.10.2014’ and also incorporated a statement that ‘scratches in the bottom cover’.  The mobile phone was not with the complainant from 27.09.2014 to 28.11.2014.  Complainant was provided with another refurbished mobile phone on 28.11.2014 but it was also having speaker complaint.  Finally complainant sent legal notice to the 1^st opposite party but they are not turned up.  The above said act of the 1^st opposite party is a clear deficiency in service towards the complainant and which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence this complainant for getting the old phone in the repaired condition or getting a fresh phone or getting the price of the mobile set along with cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

            5. In this case 1^st opposite party is exparte.  2^nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions.  2^nd opposite party is not the branch of 1^st opposite party and there is no connection with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Complainant has purchased the product from Chennai and the product given for servicing before the 1^st opposite party.  There is no transaction arose at the district of Pathanamthitta and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case.  Moreover, complainant has not sort any relief against the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore, 2^nd opposite party prays to delete 2^nd opposite party from the party array.

            6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, we raised the following points:

(1)  Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(2)  If it is maintainable the complainant is succeed to prove the deficiency in service of the opposite parties?

(3)  Regarding the relief and costs?

            7. The evidence of the complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7.  There is no oral or documentary evidence from the 2^nd opposite party.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

            8. Point Nos.1 to 3:-  Complainant’s case is that he had purchased a ‘Sony Xperia’ Mobile set from Sony dealer Chennai.  After 9 months the speaker of the set become faulty and it was given for servicing with the 1^st opposite party.  But the 1^st opposite party did not repair the set in proper time and instead of the original set he has given another one having full of scratches and text messages.  Several times complainant approached the 1^st opposite party.  But 1^st opposite party did not rectify the complaint or not replaced the set.  The above said act of the 1^st opposite party is a clear deficiency in service towards the customers for which they are liable to the complainant.

            9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed proof affidavit along with 7 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7.  Ext.A1 is the retail invoice of Rs.26,990/- dated 31.12.2013.  Ext.A2 is the service job sheet dated 27.09.2014 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A3 is the SAR information regarding the Sony mobile set.  Ext.A4 is the service job sheet dated 03.11.2014 prepared by the 1^st opposite party. Ext.A5 is the office copy of legal notice dated 24.11.2014 issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A6 and A7 is the postal receipt and acknowledgment card of Ext.A5. 

            10. On the other hand, the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that they have no connection with the case.  They have included a party to the proceedings for jurisdiction.  They have not committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant.  In order to prove the contention of the 2^nd opposite party, they have not produced any oral or documentary evidence.  Even though they cross-examined the complainant (PW1) nothing brought out to substantiate 2^nd opposite party’s case.  Hence regarding maintainability question Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.

            11. On the basis of the available materials on record, it is found that complainant purchased the mobile set on 31.12.2013 and during its warranty period it has become faulty.  For repairing the same he entrusted the same with the 1^st opposite party and they have not yet returned the set.  From Ext.A2 service job sheet it is evident that the set is with the 1^st opposite party.  According to the complainant even though he sent Ext.A5 notice there is no response from the 1^st opposite party.  Since 1^st opposite party is exparte we find no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s allegation against the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant in his complaint and in the deposition clearly stated that there is no deficiency in service from 2^nd opposite party.  PW1 in cross, “opposite party 2 വിൻറെ പക്കല് നിന്നല്ല ഫോണ് വാങ്ങിയത്. ഈ ഫോണ് ഒരിക്കലും നന്നാക്കാൻ  opposite party 2 വിനെ ഏല്പ്പിച്ചിട്ടില്ല.   1^st opposite party യുടെ  authorised service centre ആണ്  2^nd opposite party എന്ന്  net.-þ നിന്ന് മനയ്യിലാക്കി. എനിക്ക്  2^nd opposite party-þ യില് നിന്ന് യാതൊരു സേവനവീഴ്ചയും  ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല ”.    When we peruse the testimony of PW1 in cross it is so clear that there is no deficiency on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence Point No.2 and 3 found in favour of 2^nd opposite party.  But on the other hand, the allegation against 1^st opposite party is unchallenged.  When we peruse the deposition and Exts.A1 to A6 it has to be inferred that the complainant purchased the said phone from 1^st opposite party and the phone is defective in functioning.  It is also comes out in evidence that PW1 entrust the phone to 1^st opposite party and they failed to repair it or return new one to the complainant.  The evidence before the Forum is  sufficient to see that 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency in service against the complainant.  So the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged against the 1^st opposite party.  Hence Point No.2 and 3 found in favour of the complainant and it is against 1^st opposite party alone.  Therefore, the complaint is allowable against the 1^st opposite party.

            12. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby  the 1^st opposite party is directed to return the Sony Mobile set of the complainant in good working condition with extended warranty of 12 month along with compensation of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) and cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the price of the mobile set of Rs.26,990/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand nine hundred and ninety only) along with the whole amount ordered above with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount. 

            Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2015.

                                                                                                               (Sd/-)

                                                                                                                                         K.P. Padmasree,

                                                                                                                                                        (Member – I)

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)         :     (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)                          :    (Sd/-)  

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1:  Abin Koshy Cherian

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:  

A1 :  Retail invoice of Rs.26,990/- dated 31.12.2013. 

A2 :  Service job sheet dated 27.09.2014 issued by the 1^st opposite party

        to the complainant.

A3  : SAR information regarding the Sony mobile set. 

A4 : Service job sheet dated 03.11.2014 prepared by the 1^st opposite party.

A5 : Office copy of legal notice dated 24.11.2014 issued by the complainant

        to the 1^st opposite party. 

A6 & A7 : Postal receipt and acknowledgment card of Ext.A5.  

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: Nil  

                                                                                                                        (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Abin Koshy Cheriyan,Peedikayil House, Kotta. P.O.,

                    Pathanamthitta – 689 504.

               (2) The Managing Director,  Madona Electronics, 26/192, NH 47,

                     Edappally Toll, Cochin, Ernakulam – 682024.

               (3) The Managing Director,  Madona Electronics,  26/170, Ramanchira,

          M.C. Road, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta – 689 101.

    (4) The Stock File.