O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The present complainant has been filed by the complaint against OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone make SONY XPERIA T3 Model D5102 vide Invoice No.1295 dated 13.9.2014 for a sum of Rs.26,990/- from OP-3. It is alleged that sometimes in March end and April beginning the above said mobile phone started giving problems for which the complainant approached the authorized service provider i.e. OP-1 several times. It is alleged that on 23.4.2015 the product was returned after assurance that the product has been repaired. It is further alleged that the problems continued and the complainant again approached OP-1 but the product was returned as they have solved the whole problems. It is further alleged that problems continued and the complainant again approached OP-1. The OP-1 assured the complainant that they will resolve the problems in few days but nothing was done. It is also alleged that the mobile phone is still in possession with OPs and are not returning the same to the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant had sent two emails on 3.6.2015 and 6.6.2015 but still no satisfactory steps were taken by the OPs. On these facts complainant filed the present complaint praying that OPs be directed to pay the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs.26,990/-along with compound interest @ 2% per month, Rs.11,000/- towards litigation charges and Rs.1,00,000/- along with compound interest for inconvenience, deprivation mental harassment and time and again DATA Losses etc.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to all the OPs. The OPs appeared and have filed the written statement. In its written statement OPs have not disputed that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone make SONY XPERIA T3 Model D5102 (Brand of OP-2) for a sum of Rs.26,990/-. It has been pleaded that the complainant had purchased a sealed mobile handset in an absolutely good condition. It has been also stated that the problem in the handset if any, have occurred post sale and after usage and handling of the complainant. It is further stated that products of the OP-2 are delicate and require good handling, a user’s manual is always provided to the consumer of the products which enlists the do’s and don’ts. The OPs further stated that the manual is to be read before the products are put to use. It has been pleaded that it is clear that the complainant has failed to handle the product diligently or follow the instructions as per the user manual. It is further stated that the complainant has mishandled the product and has now approached this Hon’ble Forum for refund of costs and compensation due to his own acts. It is further stated that the OPs honoured the terms and conditions of the warranty from their side when the complainant has approached them, therefore there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practices on the part of the OPs. It is also stated that the OP repaired the handset free of costs. It is further stated the complainant inspected the handset each time before delivery to him and was satisfied with services. It is further stated that the complainant has been offered 80% refund of the sales price but the complainant has rejected the offer. It is also stated that the handset of complainant is with the OPs because he has refused to collect the same. It is further stated that the complainant is making unsupported and bald allegations. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts made in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. Priyank Chauhan, Authorised Representative of OPs has filed affidavit alongwith documents in support of its case.
5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments. The OP has in its reply as well as affidavit admitted that the complainant was offered 80% refund of the sale price but the same was rejected by him. The order sheet dated 8.4.2016 reveals that the counsel for the OP offered replacement of new mobile handset or the refund of the total sale price of the mobile handset, the offer was again not acceptable to the complainant. From the above facts and pleadings it is clear and evident that the mobile handset sold to the complainant was defective, therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Accordingly, the OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.26,990/- i.e. the cost price of the mobile handset to the complainant. The OPs are also liable to compensate the complainant for mental tension, harassment and agony. The OPs are, therefore directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards the compensation etc. which will also include cost of litigation. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 30th day of April, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
