PRESENT: Sh. Surender Lamba, Adv. for Complainant.

           OP No.2 deleted.

           OP No.1 & 3 ex-parte.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, the Complainant purchased one Sony Ericsson Mobile (W-595) from OP No. 3 on 9.12.2008, against Bill No. 9414, for a sum of Rs.13,600/-, carrying one year warranty (Ann.C-1). It was alleged that just after 03 months, defects (turns off randomly, remains off, flip/slider detection problem) occurred in the hand set. Upon lodging complaint, the set was taken from him vide Annexure C-2 and it was mentioned in the slip that the problem was of Slider and Audo off and it was assured that the set would be replaced within one week. But despite lapse of more than 06 months, neither the set was replaced, nor the defects were removed and the set was still with the OPs, due to which the Complainant had to suffer great hardship. The OPs misbehaved with the Complainant and threatened him on the issue. A legal notice dated 14.5.2009 (Ann.C-3) was also served upon the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for refund of the cost price of mobile i.e. Rs.13,600/- along with interest @18% p.a. Besides this, the Complainant has also claimed Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation and Rs.80,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony, due to deficiency on the part of the OPs.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]      OPs No. 1 and 3 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte. While, the name of OP No. 2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, on the basis of a request from the Complainant and as per a separate zimni order dated 7.1.2010. 

4]      Learned Counsel for the Complainant led evidence and argued the case in support of his contentions.

5]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint, the affidavit and all other relevant documents tendered by the complainant. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant (OPs No.1 & 3 being ex-parte and OP No.2 having been deleted from the array of parties). As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having purchased one Sony Ericsson Mobile (W-595) from OP No. 3 on 9.12.2008, for a sum of Rs.13,600/- with one year warranty, has all been established. The allegation of the Complainant against the OPs is that just after 03 months, some serious defects arose in the mobile set. The defects were like turning off randomly, remains off and on, flip/slider detection problem etc. As per the Complainant, the mobile set was taken from him by OP No. 2 (Annexure C-2). It was mentioned in the job slip that the problem was of “Slider and Auto Off” with the assurance that the set would be replaced within one week. It is observed that despite a lapse of more than 06 months, neither the set was replaced, nor defects were rectified and more so, the set was still lying with OPs and not returned to the Complainant so far, due to which the Complainant had to suffer great hardship. The Complainant has also alleged misbehaviour on the part of OP No. 2, who allegedly threatened the Complainant and did not render proper service to him.

ii] In the present complaint, while OP No. 2 was deleted at the request of the Complainant, OPs No. 1 and 3 were declared ex-parte. As such, none of the OPs came to defend their case. The Complainant on his part has not only submitted the detailed complaint, but also given an affidavit reiterating the allegations made by him against the OPs. He has also submitted relevant proof of the purchase of mobile set from OP No. 3 on 9.12.2008 for Rs.13,600/-, with warranty of one year, as also the job card generated by OP No. 2 on 25.3.2009. The period in question in which some of the defects were detected by the Complainant and pointed out to the OPs; fell clearly within the warranty period and, therefore, the OPs were liable to either fully repair the mobile hand set and in case, they were not able to repair the hand set to the satisfaction of the Complainant, they were liable to replace the defective mobile set, with a new defect free hand set. None of this has been done by the OPs.

6]      Keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, especially, keeping in view the fact that the OPs have totally failed to defend their case, the case of the Complainant is well established. There is no reason to disbelieve the allegations made by the Complainant against the OPs, which are well founded. The OPs on their part have definitely been deficient in service and have also indulged in an unfair trade practice by retaining the mobile set for more than 06 months without carrying out repair of any kind and also not returning the same to the Complainant after due repairs or replacing the defective set with a few defect free set. In our opinion, this is an act of utter high handedness on the part of the OPs.

7]      In view of the above, in our opinion, the present complaint has a lot of merit, weight and substance and it must succeed in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. Therefore, we allow the present complaint favouring the Complainant and against the OPs. The OPs are directed to make the following payments, jointly and severally, to the Complainant: -

i)  To refund the cost price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.13,600/-.

ii) To pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice on their part.

iii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards of cost of litigation. 

8]     The aforesaid order be complied with, jointly and severally, by the OPs within a period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall, jointly and severally, pay Rs.23,600/-, along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the receipt of the mobile set for repairs i.e. 25.03.2009, till the date of realization, besides the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/-.

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