Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/72

Sri Vijaya Bhaskar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mobil World, Rayagda Others - Opp.Party(s)

self

16 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,

 

C.C. Case No.72/ 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 Bijaya Bhaskar ,S/o B.Tarakeswar Rao, New Colony,Po/ Dist. Rayagada.

                                                                                                            …………..Complainant

                                    Vrs.

 

1. M/s Mobi World, Hotel Kapilas Road, , Near SBI, ADB,, Rayagada.

 

2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,A-31,Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                                                            ………….Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the Complainant:  In person

For the  O.Ps: Sri S.S.Mishra,  Advocate, Jeypore.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  is that  the complainant  has purchased a Sony Xperia ZR Mobile Set from the Opp.Party No.1  for a sum  of Rs.29,800/-vide Cash Memo  No.1850 dt.02/04/2014with one year warrant  but after its purchase the set started troubling,  and it becoming heat, hanging for which the complainant has made complaint  and given  for service for  ad the service centre has not  given the job sheet  and the set is continuing with the same trouble and it is an inherent manufacturing defect and the O.ps refused to replace the same and the service center refused to give the service.  .The complainant , therefore prays to direct the O.ps to refund the cost of mobile set Rs.29,800/-  with interest  and  award compensation of Rs.10,000/-   along with cost  for litigation . Hence this complaint.

                        On being notice, the Opp.Parties appeared through  their advocate Sri S.S.Mishra and files written version denying the allegations on all its material particulars .

                         It is submitted  by the O.Ps that the complainant  has purchased a Sony Xperia ZR  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. If the complainant was having  any problem with respect to the handset then the complainant should have  visited the authorized service centre of the O.P 2 but the complainant never  visited the authorized service centre  for redressal of the alleged defects. There was no inherent defect in the mobile  as alleged. The complainant must not have abided the instructions outlined in the user guide due to which his phone got damaged if at al the handset is damaged. 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.   Therefore, the O.ps were shocked upon receipt  the notice from the Hon’ble Forum and became aware of the current dispute  when the said notice was received. After receipt of the notice, the O.p 3 repeatedly requested the complainant to deposit the handset with the  authorized service centre of O.p 3  in or der to inspect the handset and provide necessary support but the complainant has refused to have the handset inspected. The complainant  files this complaint  with an intention to harass the O.ps  and to make wrongful  monetary gains  and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint against the O.ps.

                        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 four times 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.

                                                            ORDER

                        The Opp.Party No. 1 & 2 - being the dealer &  manufacturer are  directed to refund the purchase amount of Rs.29,800/-  with 9% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 02.04.2014 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.100/- towards litigation expenses. 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 14^th day of October,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:

1. Invoice No.1850 dt.02.04.2014

 

For the Opp.Parties: Nil

 

                                                                                                            President