O R D E R

By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:

          Complainant purchased a Sony Mobile Phone C 5502 Xperia ZR Black for Rs.24,800/- on 23/01/14 from 1^st opposite party manufactured by 3^rd opposite party vide invoice No.8B/TCR/6301. In the month of June 2015 the Microphone of the handset turned defective and the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to get the handset repaired. 1^st opposite party directed the complainant to 2^nd opposite party. They informed him that if he surrender the phone, they will pay 20% of the value of the same back to the complainant. They are bound to provide adequate service and instead of it the opposite parties’ stand as aforesaid is false and deficiency of service. Hence the complainant caused lawyer notice dtd. 27/08/05 which yielded no result and this complaint filed.

          2) On receiving notice. Notices served properly to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed its version. The contents of the version is as follows : The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant purchased the handset in question on 23/01/2014 and after purchase the complainant has approached the 2^nd opposite party twice on 03/02/2014 and 08/04/2014 citing hanging issue in the handset and on both occasion immediately his complaint was addressed vide Job-sheet No. W114040800771 & W114020301626 and the set was delivered back to the complainant in his full satisfaction. Although no defect was observed by the answering opposite parties in the handset yet due to it’s customer centric policy, the answering opposite parties as a goodwill gesture, offered 20% rebate if the complainant opts to purchase any higher end model, but the complainant instead of appreciating the goodwill gesture of the answering opposite parties filed, the present malafide complaint. As per the inspection carried out by opposite parties there is no defect in the handset C5502 Xperia ZR having IMEI No.356603050179523 and the same is working fine as per its specification. If the complainant alleges defect in the handset he has to prove the same through expert evidence or any other cogent evidence. There is no lack or deficiency in service from the part of the answering opposite parties and the complainant has made a case which is completely false and frivolous in nature and prayed for dismissal.

          3) Points for consideration are :

                   a) Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of

                       opposite parties or not ?

                   b) If yes, reliefs and costs ?

          4) When the case was posted for evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with complaint and produced 3 documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the Invoice dtd. 23/01/2014; Ext. P2 is the copy of lawyer notice dtd. 27/08/2015 and Ext. P3 is the Reply Notice dtd.25/09/2015. The mobile phone produced and marked as MO1. The complainant also taken out a Commissioner to prove his case and the report of the Commissioner marked as Ext. C1. From the side of opposite parties no evidences were adduced.

          5) Points :

          The case of the complainant is that on 23/01/14 he purchased a Sony Mobile phone for Rs.24,800/-. Ext. P1 proves the purchase. The opposite parties also admit the purchase and further states that on 03/02/14 and 08/04/14 the instrument were produced before the 2^nd opposite party for services due to its hanging issues. Hence opposite party states that the hand set was produced for services at the initial stage of its purchase.

          2) Now the Expert Commissioner has been appointed and he filed Ext. C1 report. It is categorically reported that the mobile phone is not working and its Mother board is defective. The Mother board is major component and defect to the same cause the product not work properly. Hence Ext. C1 categorically states the defect in the goods for which the opposite parties are answerable. It is to be considered that the bonafide consumer spend huge amount of money to get a quality product and proper after sale service. As the defect is still existing it can only to be inferred that the handset is of not up to the normal standard of performance.

          3) Considering the pleadings and evidence as a whole this Commission is inclined to allow this complaint as the complainant could establish a cogent case before this Commission. Spending a huge amount of money to purchase a product and the defectiveness of the goods shall cause high mental agony to the genuine consumer and same is to be compensated by parties concerned.

          In the result, complaint is allowed and hereby direct the 3^rd opposite party to pay Rs.24,800/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand eight hundred only) to the complainant and 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees thousand only) each. All the sum shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing in which, the same shall carry 6% interest from the date of this order.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 21^st day of June 2021.

   Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

Sreeja S                                                                                   C.T. Sabu

Member                                                                                    President

                               Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 Invoice dtd. 23/01/2014

Ext. P2 copy of lawyer notice dtd. 27/08/2015

Ext. P3 Reply Notice dtd.25/09/2015

MO1 Mobile Phone

Ext. C1 Expert Commissioner’s Report

Id/-

Member