DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
C.C. Case No.418/ 2015.
P R E S E N T .
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B President
And
Smt.Ch.Nirmala Kumari Raju,LL.B Member
Sri Sukant Kumar Panda, C/o: Sri Naresh Chandra Acharya, MRT & EMR Division, South-Co Utility, Po/Dist:Rayagada Pin-765002
…………..Complainant
Vrs.
- M/s Lot Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., 10-3-280/B, Osman Plaza, Humayan Nagar, Mehiditatnam, Hyderabad-TG,
- The Manager, Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,A-31,Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
- The Manager, Excellent Care, Service Centre of Sony Mobile, Berhampur-760002
………….Opp.Parties
Counsel for the parties:
For the Complainant: In person
For the O.P. No.1: Self
For the O.P. No.2 & 3: Set Exparte
JUDGMENT
The facts of the complaint is that the complainant has purchased a Sony Xperia M2, Black Mobile Set from the Opp.Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.14,725/-vide Retail Invoice No.S1/MHD/4054 dt.18/01/2015 with one year warrant but after few months of its purchase several technical problems arised and as there is no service centre at Rayagada he sent the mobile to the Berhampur Service Centre and but unfortunately the same problem started and at present there is no clue for repairing the same and hence finding no other option the complainant prayed before this forum to direct the O.ps to refund the cost of mobile set Rs.14,725/- with interest and award compensation of Rs.5000/- along with cost for litigation . Hence this complaint.
On being notice, the Opp.Party No.1 appeared and files written version denying the allegations on all its material particulars .
It is submitted by the O.P. No.1 that the complainant has purchased a Sony Xperia M2 Black from O.p 1 and the O.p 2 provides warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of warranty. From the terms of the warranty it is clear that the Opposite Party No.2 is liable to provide free of cost repair on its products in cases when the product is proved to be defective due to improper material, workmanship, manufacturing defect or any other problem that has arisen in the product from the manufacturers side and not when the defect has arisen due to an external cause which is beyond the control of the
-2-
Opp.Pary No.1 & 3, After enjoying the mobile for almost seven months the complainant approached the O.p 3 for the first time on 31.08.2015 with the issue of Phone starts but display shows black/while screen and on being inspected no such problem was found and thoroughly demonstrated to the complainant and the software of the handset was duly upgraded by the O.p No.3 and the handset was returned to the complainant in proper working condition and thereafter the complainant never approached any of the authorized service centre of the O.p.No.2 and is still enjoying the handset without any issues and the complainant despite the fact has filed the present complaint in order to harass the O.ps. The instant case is false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the complaint is filed just to avail undue advantage and to earn wrongful gains and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the pleadings, the following points are need to be answered for determination of this case.
(i) Whether the mobile set is having any manufacturing defect ?
(ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties , if so, is he liable for compensation and to what extent ?
Point No.1
It is the case of the complainant that immediately after its purchase , the mobile hand set given problem and after its repair by the authorized service centre for the same problem exists . If the defect in the mobile set is not a manufacturing one , the service centre could have able to remove it and at least within the warranty period there would be no further defect in the set but in the instant case, the defects could not be removed . Again and again the defect was detected for which the complainant was not able to use it and ultimately took the shelter of this forum. Hence, it is clear that the defects in the mobile set was not rectified at the service centre and the set was returned to the complainant with the existing problem and the O.Ps totally failed to repair the set as the defects in the mobile set is a manufacturing one.
Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
Hence, in the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of complainant.
Point No.2
As the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant , it is concluded that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. Since the date of purchase , the mobile set given problem for which complainant went to the service centre for repair for two times but the defects could not be rectified , and when the complainant went for third time the O.P Service centre refused give any service ,which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. Therefore, the O.Ps are liable to refund the amount of the mobile set and also they are liable to pay compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation for filing this dispute. Accordingly, the Point No. 2 is answered in favour of the complainant. . Hence, we allowed the complaint partly and dispose of the matter with the following directions.
-3-
ORDER
The Opp.Party No. 1 & 2 - being the dealer & manufacturer are directed to refund the purchase amount of Rs14,725/- with 9% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 18.01.2015 to the complainant and take back the defective set from the complainant and pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses. The Op No.3 has no Iota of evidence hence, the Op No.3 left out from the order. The matter is disposed of with the direction to the O.P. No. 1 & 2 to make the payment to the complainant within one month, failing which complainant is at liberty to file Criminal Proceeding U/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 for realization of the amount.
Pronounced in the open forum today on this 24th day of February, 2015 under the seal and signature of this forum.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parities free of charge.
Member President
Documents relief upon;
For the complainant:
- Invoice No.S1/MHD/4054 dt.18.01.2015
- Receipt of Service Centre, Berhampur.
For the Opp.Parties: Nil
President
