O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1 The complainant sought direction to the opposite parties delivery of new sealed Sony Mobile Phone “Xperia TM Z1” or alternatively to refund the costs of mobile with interest from the date of purchase till date of realization and also Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards transport charges and for costs of the complaint.
2 The allegations in the complaint in brief are that the complainant purchased Sony Mobile Model “Xperia TM Z1” on 21.01.2014 worth Rs. 40,199/- from the 1st opposite party who is dealer in the said mobiles. The 2nd opposite party is service provider and 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer. According to him as per the brochure the mobile is water resistant and as per the warranty, if there is any accidental damage within 6 months from the date of purchase a new set will be provided to the purchaser. On one day in the month of April, 2014 the mobile purchased by him was drenched in water accidentally and damaged. When he approached the opposite party he collected the mobile from him and sent it to the 2nd opposite party, promising to get a new mobile in the place of damaged one. The 2nd opposite party has issued a job sheet 26.05.2014 to the complainant wherein it is mentioned about the damage of the set purchased by the complainant and also warranty period as damage occurred within six months. The opposite parties should replace the damaged one with new mobile. When 2nd opposite party offered new Sonia company mobiles on two occasions he did not agree to receive on the ground they were scratches on the mobile and they were already opened from its boxes. Further for the notice issued by him 1st and 2nd opposite parties though received the same but did not respond. The 3rd opposite party issued reply offering him a service phone in the place of damaged one. The complainant issued the rejoinder to the said reply notice demanding a new sealed phone or refund of cost of the mobile. As there was no reply from the opposite parties for the rejoinder, the complainant filed the present complaint.
3 The opposite parties one to three remained exparte
4 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts sought by him in the complaint?
5 Point No.1: The complainant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the allegations in the complaint and exhibited Exs. A1 to A10 which are the brochure released by the 3rd opposite party, original credit bill, service job sheet, office copy of lawyer’s notice, acknowledgments of 1st and 2nd opposite parties; reply notice issued by 3rd opposite party, rejoinder issued by the complainant and acknowledgments of 1st to 3rd opposite parties.
6. As seen from the chief affidavit and also the documents exhibited on his side it is clear that the complainant purchased mobile phone from 1st opposite party which was damaged due to drenching in the water accidentally. Though he issued a notice and also rejoinder requesting the opposite parties to replace the damaged phone with a new one, the opposite parties failed to do so.
7 In fact in the reply notice issued by the 3rd opposite party it is specifically mentioned the service cost becomes more than the cost of product for this reason they exchange phone in the warranty period and they have exchanges hand set of the complainant with a factory refurbished unit. The exchange that they were doing there is a service solution for a failure in the hand set of the complainant in the 4th month. They also made a mention about their inability to adhere to the request of the complainant for providing a fresh sealed packed hand set. Thus even according to the reply of 3rd opposite party when the cost of service exceeds the actual cost of the hand set, it is very reasonable to accede to the request of the complainant to provide a new hand set in the place of damaged one. As the opposite parties failed to provide new hand set as claimed by the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.
8 Point No.2: In view of the finding rendered under point No.1, the complainant is entitled for replacement of his old mobile set by a new one or alternatively for refund of cost of the mobile which is Rs. 40,199/- with interest @9% from the date of purchase till date of realization. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
9 In the result, the opposite parties are directed to provide the complainant with new sealed Sony Mobile “Xperia TM Z1” or alternatively refund of Rs. 40,199/- [Rupees forty thousand one hundred and ninety nine only] with interest @9% from the date of purchase till date of realization and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- [two thousand only] towards expenses incurred by the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to pay the above said amounts within one month from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% from the date of this order till date of realization.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 13th day of January, 2015
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant : None For opposite parties : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Brochure released by the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A2 Original credit bill
Ex.A3 Service job sheet issued by 2nd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A4 Office copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2.
Ex.A5 Acknowledgment receipt from 1st opposite party
Ex.A6 Acknowledgment receipt from 2nd opposite party
Ex.A7 Letter received from 3rd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A8 Rejoinder issued by the complainant to the opposite parties
Ex.A9 Acknowledgment from 1st opposite party
Ex.A10 Acknowledgment from 3rd opposite party
For opposite parties: NIL
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
