BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 99/2010 Filed on 25.03.2010

Dated : 30.09.2011

Complainants :

1. Roshan. T.K, Thathampallil House, Manjadi P.O, Thiruvalla-5.

2. Koshy K.L, Thazhampadickal, Maramon P.O, Pathanamthitta District (Office Address: District Soil Testing Laboratory, Parottukonam, Nalanchira, Thiruvananthapuram-15).

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties :

1. M/s Prompt Services, T.C 2/2410(2), first Floor, Bethel Towers, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

   (By adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

2. M/s Accel Frontline, 1^st Floor, Building No. 41/2207, Veekshanam Road, Kochi-18.

    

3. M/s Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication, Marketing Unit Middle East, Dubai Internet City, Building 2, Office 201, P.O. Box 500183, Dubai, UAE.

    

4. M/s Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication Pvt. Ltd., IV Floor, Dakka House, 18/17, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5.

    

5. M/s Ansar Mall, P.O Box 38880, Sharjah, UAE.

This O.P having been heard on 03.08.2011, the Forum on 30.09.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The 1^st complainant had purchased a brand new Sony Ericsson X'peria X1 handset manufactured by M/s Sony Ericsson from the 5^th opposite party's shop in Sharjah, UAE on 01.10.2009 for an amount AED1799 Dhms (equivalent to INR 22667.40 @ Rs. 12.8/Dhm). Due to the recession he lost his job in UAE and was forced to return to his native place in Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta District and is doing some business for his livelihood in Kerala. From he beginning itself the handset showed some problems with the speaker as the sound could not be heard clearly and properly. So he entrusted the handset with his friend, who is the 2^nd complainant for a service with an authorized/certified service centre of the manufacturer M/s Sony Ericsson. The 2^nd complainant handed over the handset to the 1^st opposite party for service, as the 1^st opposite party is the certified service centre of the 4^th opposite party and the franchisee of the 2^nd opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram. The 4^th opposite party is the Indian representative/subsidiary of the manufacturer M/s Sony Ericsson as the 3^rd opposite party is in UAE. The 2^nd opposite party is the service representative of the 4^th opposite party in Kerala and controls the service franchisees of the 4^th opposite party in Kerala and also one of the service points of the 4^th opposite party. During the month of November 2009 the handset showed some problems with its loud speaker. On 19^th November 2009, the 2^nd complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and showed the handset and they opened a job card and accepted the handset for rectifying the loud speaker disturbance. The 1^st opposite party estimated Rs. 400/- for their service even in the warranty period saying that international warranty is not available in India as the set was purchased from the 5^th opposite party in Sharjah, UAE. It was assured that the warranty may continue in UAE even if the set is serviced by any of the authorized service centres in India. After 2 days the 1^st opposite party returned the set after service. The same problem persisted even after the service done by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party stated that the problem with the loudspeaker can be rectified only by replacing the loudspeaker and the spare loudspeaker was not available with them. Hence the 2^nd complainant gave order for the spare and took the set with him paying the service charge of Rs. 276/-. While the set was given for service, the 1^st opposite party used the phone for their personal purpose without any other problem, which was noticed by the complainants from the call history of the phone. After 2 weeks the 1^st opposite party informed the 2^nd complainant that the spares arrived and was asked to handover the set with them. Hence on 08.12.2009 the 2^nd complainant entrusted the handset with the 1^st opposite party. When the handset was given tot eh 1^st opposite party it was working without any defect except the loudspeaker complaint and the 1^st oppostie party assured the 2^nd complainant they will inform him when the set is ready. As there was no response from the 1^st opposite party even after 3 days, the 2^nd complainant called the 1^st opposite party and they informed that the set is showing some problems. When the 2^nd complainant called the 1^st oppsotie party again on the next day and it was informed that the set was completely dead. The complainants were astonished to hear this, as it was fully functioning when he handed over the same to the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party also informed they had sent it to their service centre in Chennai for further service. This too was without the consent of the complainants. The complainants approached 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties and sent several e-mails to them, but all were in vain. They informed the complainants that they are not responsible for the above things and harassed the complainants without any reason. The handset is still with the 1^st opposite party. They are not even ready to disclose the details. Being a business man 1^st complainant has to get so many phone calls in connection with his business. The above said acts of the opposite parties put the 1^st complainant into peril and he lost so many business deals due to lack of a phone. The act of the 1^st opposite party put the complainants into great financial loss, mental agony, stress and strain. The above acts of the opposite parties are a clear case of deficiency in service. Hence they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainants for the loss incurred to them. The complainants have no other way than to approach this Hon'ble Forum for the redressal of their grievances.

1^st opposite party filed version stating that it is true that the mobile phone of the complainant was entrusted with the 1^st opposite party on 19.11.2007 for general service and speaker complaint. The set was accepted for repair without warranty as agreed by the complainant also as handset sold outside India are not given warranty in India. On a detailed examination of the handset it was found that there is some complaint with respect to printed circuit board. The matter was informed to the complainant and the set was sent to Next Level Service Centre at Chennai. As the repair of printed circuit Board will take some time, the opposite party sought for the permission of the complainant for replacing the printed circuit Board. But the complainant was not amenable. The set was repaired and it was informed to the complainant many times over phone. But he did not turn back to take back the set. At last a registered letter was sent to the complainant on 27.03.2010, for which also there was no response. The 1^st opposite party alleges that the intention of the complainant is malafide. He was purposefully creating a litigation without any ground. The 1^st opposite party has informed all the details to the complainant and on receiving back the set from Chennai after repair, it was informed to the complainant. But the complainant purposefully did not collect the set and in a hurry approached this Forum by way of this false and vexatious complaint with malafide motives. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Opposite parties 2 to 5 remained ex-parte. They accepted notice of this complaint. But never turned up to contest the case.

The 2^nd complainant in this case has filed proof affidavit for himself and on behalf of the 1^st complainant. From their side 4 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. He was cross examined by the 1^st opposite party as PW1. 1^st opposite party also has filed affidavit and from his side 3 documents were marked as Ext. D1 to D3.

The points to be ascertained are:-

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service occurred from the side of opposite parties?

2. Reliefs and costs.

    

Points (i) & (ii):- The 1^st complainant had purchased the Sony Ericsson X'peria X1 hand set from the 5^th opposite party's shop in Sharjah on 01.10.2009 for an amount AED1799 Dhms (equivalent to INR 22667.40 @ Rs. 12.8/Dhm). Ext. P1 is the cash invoice of this purchase and Ext. P2 is its receipt. The complainant stated that from the beginning itself the handset showed some problems with the speaker as the sound could not be heard clearly and properly. So he entrusted the handset with his friend, the 2^nd complainant for service in an authorized service centre of M/s Sony Ericsson. The 2^nd complainant entrusted the phone to the 1^st opposite party on 19.11.2009. Ext. P3 is the work order issued by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd complainant. As per this document the problems reported are that ear speaker problem, loudspeaker problem and general service, speaker com and as per this document estimate repair charge is seen as Rs. 400/-. After 2 days the 1^st opposite party returned the set after service. But the same problem persisted. The 1^st opposite party stated that the problem with the loudspeaker can be rectified only by replacing the loudspeaker and the spare loudspeaker was not available with them. Hence 2^nd complainant gave order for the spare and took the set with him paying the service charge of Rs. 276/-. Ext. P4 is the receipt of that payment. On 08.12.2009 the 2^nd complainant entrusted the handset with the 1^st opposite party. The complainant states that when the handset was given to the 1^st opposite party it was working without any defect except the loud speaker complaint and the 1^st opposite party assured the 2^nd complainant that they will inform him when the set is ready. But the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the set was completely dead and they had sent it to their service centre in Chennai for further service. The complainant states that this was without their consent. Therefore the complainants approached all the opposite parties and sent several e-mails to them, but all were in vain. The handset is still with the 1^st opposite party. That the above said acts of the opposite parties put the 1^st complainant into peril and he lost so many business deals due to lack of a phone. In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. The 1^st opposite party cross examined him. At the time of cross examination the 1^st opposite party put a suggestion to the 2^nd complainant that “ഈ തര്‍ക്ക set printed circuit board change ചെയ്ത് defect free ആക്കി നല്‍കാന്‍ 1^st opposite party തയ്യാറാണ് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു. അങ്ങനെ തന്നാല്‍ വാങ്ങാമോ? (Q) വാങ്ങാം. പക്ഷേ ഈ set 1^st opposite party-യുടെ കൈവശം 12 മാസം ഇരുന്നതില്‍ ഞങ്ങളുടെ gulf-ല്‍ കിട്ടേണ്ട warranty നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടു. ടി full warranty ഇതേ company-യോ operation-ഓ തരണം (A)”. This Forum also find that this offer is reasonable for the redressal of the grievances of the complainant along with compensation. From the pleadings and evidence of the complainant, we find that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party repaired the Printed Circuit Board knowingly the fact that the warranty will be lost if the set is repaired in a service centre in India. From Ext. P3 document we find that when the set was given to the 1^st opposite party it was in good working condition, the only problem was with the speaker and the complainants have asked only to replace the speaker with a new one and the speaker was only the spare part ordered by them. The 1^st opposite party repaired the Printed Circuit Board without the consent of the complainant and due to that reason the complainant has lost his opportunity to get the warranty in UAE. This act of the 1^st opposite party shows their deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to return the hand set in good working condition to the complainants with free of cost or to replace the handset with a defect free new hand set or to pay the value of the handset AED1799 Dhms equivalent to Rs. 22667.40. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the 1^st complainant. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount till the date of realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of September 2011.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 99/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Koshy K.L

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of cash invoice No. 211756 dated 01.10.2009

P2 - Copy of bill dated 01.10.2009

P3 - Copy of job card dated 19.11.2009

P4 - Copy of cash receipt dated 23.11.2009

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Dinesh

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of letter dated 26.03.2010

D2 - Copy of postal receipt dated 27.03.2010

D3 - Job card dated 19.11.2009.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb