CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 20/04/12

CC / 76/2012

Shajahan.Y,

S/o.Yakoob, Mallambara House, - Complainant

Erattakulam P.O,

Palakkad- 678 682

(BY ADV.S.Deviprasad)

Vs

1. Manager,

Univercell Mobile Showroom,

D.No.11/1157-1,NMR Complex,

T.B.Road, Palakkad- 678 014

- Opposite parties

2. Manager,

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications

(Ind) Pvt.Ltd, 4^th Floor, Dakha House,

18/17 Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

(BY ADV.A.Pradeepkumar)

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant has bought a Mobile hand set named 'MIX WALKMAN' of SONY ERICSSON' communications from 'Univercell' mobile showroom for an amount of Rs.6,650/- with one year warranty and insurance coverage of Rs.150/- on 27/01/2012. The complainant was not able to attend the incoming calls as the sound system of the mobile hand set was so poor. Also some applications are not functioning. To solve these problems the complainant approached the showroom on 29.1.2012. But they could not rectify it. 1^st opposite party suggested that the hand set could be taken back only at half price and the complainant should buy another mobile set of the same company with full amount. So the complainant approached the service centre of the opposite parties. They are also not able to find out the problems and rectify the same. Again the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and he was insulted by the Manager saying that you have used the phone for two months. Then the complainant sent a registered notice to the 1^st opposite party stating the complaints on 2.4.2012. After one week he informed the complainant over phone that he is ready to exchange the phone. But the complainant didn't accept the offer as he had lost the faith in the establishment of opposite parties.

The act of opposite parties caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.

So the complainant is seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.99,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

Eventhough the notice served 1^st opposite party not appeared before the forum and set exparte. 2^nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following.

The hand set in question was purchased by the complainant on 27/01/2012 after his complete satisfaction and the demonstration for operating the same. At the time of purchasing the handset was not having any manufacturing defect. The complainant made first complaint after using the handset for few weeks of the purchase and the said complaint was attended by the authorized person of 2^nd opposite party. The customer made the complaint of low ringer volume of the handset. The hand set in question was thoroughly checked by the engineers and no defect was found. Normal out put volume was there and the same was intimated to the complainant. The complainant again went to 1^st opposite party and demanded replacement of the handset. The opposite party refused to replace the handset as there was no defect in the handset. When the complainant pressed for it, the 1^st opposite party agree to replace the old hand set with a new one. But the complainant refused to accept the offer and demanded for the refund of the price of the handset. The allegations in the complaint are without any proof and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed their affidavits. Ext.A1 to A4 marked. No documentary evidence is adduced on the part of opposite party.

Issues to be considered are:

I. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

II. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

Issues No.I & II

The complainant had purchased a Mobile hand set of 'SONY ERICSSON' mobile communications from 'Univercell' mobile showroom, Palakkad for an amount of Rs.6,650/- with one year warranty and insurance coverage of Rs.150/- on 27/01/2012. It is evident from Ext.A1 document. As the sound system of the mobile handset was so poor and some applications are not functioning properly the complainant approached the service centre on 29.1.2012 to solve these problems. Ext.A4 reveals the same. They are also not able to find out the problems of the hand set and rectify the same. Again the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party manager and he insulted the complainant in front of other customers. All these are not supported by any evidence. On 2.4.2012 the complainant sent a registered letter to the 1^st opposite party. After one week the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant over phone that they are ready to replace the hand set with a new one.

Complainant has not produced the defective mobile phone before the Forum and no steps has taken to prove the defects. The purchasing of the hand set is admitted by the opposite party. Opposite party also admitted that the complainant of the handset is question was attended by the authorized person of opposite party No.2. The purchasing of the mobile phone was on 27.1.2012 within two days itself the defect was noticed. The 1^st opposite party has not appeared before the Forum eventhough notice was served. It is admitted by the 2^nd opposite party is that on getting the registered letter the 1^st opposite party was ready to, replace the mobile phone when the complainant pressed for the same. In the complaint there is no prayer for replacement or rectifying the mobile phone.

From the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th day of July, 2012.

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– The advertisement issued by Univercell.

Ext.A2 – Tax Invoice No.UKL 326859 dt.27/01/2011 (Original)

Ext. A3 – Warranty certificate of Sony Ericsson.

Ext. A4 – Customer data form of Univercell.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.