DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:683 of 2010]

                                                          Date of Institution : 20.10.2010

                                                           Date of Decision    : 11.04.2011

Sh. Harpreet Singh son of Sh. Sohan Singh resident of House No.2185, Sector 66, Mohali.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

1.      M/s Naresh Department Store, SCO No.1026, Sector 22-B, (Opposite Main Bus Stand), Chandigarh.

2.      M/s Intarvo Technologies Ltd., SCO No.2473-74, Second Floor, Sector 22C, Chandigarh.

3.      M/s Sony Ericsson, Mobile Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4^th Floor, Dakha House, 18/17, Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA        PRESIDENT

                SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI     MEMBER

                SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

Argued By:Sh. Harpreet Singh, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Vipin Chander (Engg.) on behalf of OP No.2.

                   OPs No.1 and 3 already exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Harpreet Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed  to :-

i)                   To refund the cost of the mobile set.

ii)                 To pay reasonable compensation for mental agony and financial loss, as the court deem fit.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 27.1.2010, he purchased a Sony Ericsson Mobile Set from OP No.1. The said mobile phone started giving problems and the same was handed over to OP No.2 i.e. M/s Intarvo Technologies Ltd. (authorised service centre) of OP No.1 for necessary repairs on 1.6.2010, which was returned to the complainant on 22.6.2010. The said mobile phone was not functioning properly and the complainant had to take his mobile phone at numerous times to OP No.2 i.e. on 26.7.2010, 7.9.2010 for its repairs. But the mobile set has not been properly repaired. It is still defective. So, there is some manufacturing defect in it. It has further been pleaded that when the complainant approached OPs No.1 and 2 for its replacement, they refused to do replace the mobile set. The grouse of the complainant is that he has suffered a great loss for getting it’s the mobile phone repaired besides monetary loss as well as mental agony and physical harassment. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                OPs No.1 and 3 were duly served through courier but they chose not to appear before the Forum and thus, they were proceeded against vide order dated 09.12.2010.

4.             In the reply filed by OP No.2, the factum of visiting the complainant to OP No.2 for repairing his mobile set on various dates i.e.1.6.2010, 26.7.2010, 7.9.2010 has been admitted. It is pleaded that every time, the complaint of the complainant was duly attended and his mobile set was duly repaired to his full satisfaction. It is asserted that initially, when the mobile set was brought by the complainant on all the three dates i.e.1.6.2010 26.7.2010 and 7.9.2010, the Motherboard was changed thrice and the software of the mobile set was upgraded every time. According to this OP, every time, the mobile set was returned to the complainant after repairing the same to the full satisfaction of the complainant.  In these circumstances, according to OP No.2, there is no deficiency in service on its part, so, the complaint deserves dismissal.  

5.                We have heard Sh. Harpreet Singh (complainant in person), Sh. Vipin Chander (Engineer) on behalf of OP No.2  and perused the record very carefully.

6.                From the perusal of Cash Memo dated 27.1.2010, photocopy of which is placed on record by the complainant, it is proved that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from Naresh Departmental Store i.e. OP No.1 for Rs.12,100/-. Further, from perusal of the documents i.e. Job Sheets/Work orders (Annexures C-1 to C-3), it is clearly proved that the mobile set in question was taken to OP No.2 for repairs thrice. It is clearly apparent from these documents that the mobile set was suffering from          “INSERT SIM PROBLEM” and CAMERA PROBLME FRONT (CAMERA HET UP) and OP No.2 after checking the mobile set observed that following Fault Codes:-

                   “16 – HW Part Defective Function.

                     16 – HW Part Defective Function.

31– SW Other Error (Use Remarks Field to Comment”

It is admitted by OP No.2 that on all the three dates i.e. 1.6.2010 26.7.2010 and 7.9.2010, the Motherboard of the mobile set was changed and the software of the mobile set was upgraded every time. Despite it, the mobile set has not been properly repaired. It undoubtedly proves that the mobile set in question is suffering from some inherent (manufacturing) defect. Despite the fact that the mobile is having some manufacturing defect, OPs refused to replace the same. They also refused to refund the price of the mobile phone. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 3. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the price of the mobile set along with compensation for mental agony and harassment, which he suffered due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 3.

7.                In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with following directions to OPs No.1 and 3 to:-

i)        Refund the amount of Rs.12,100/- to the complainant being the price of the mobile set in question.

iii)      Pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment

iv)      Pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

8.                However, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2, the complaint qua it is dismissed.

9.             This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 3 jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs No.1 and 3 shall be liable to pay Rs.17,100/- i.e. [Rs.12,100 + Rs.5,000] along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.20.10.2010 till actual payment besides Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced.

11^th April 2011.

 Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Ad/-

C.C.No.683 of   2010

Argued By:Sh. Harpreet Singh, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Vipin Chander (Engg.) on behalf of OP No.2.

                   OPs No.1 and 3 already exparte.

                                                          ---

                   As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed qua OPs No.1 and 3 only. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.

11.04.2011          Member              President             Member