By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get refund of the price of the defective mobile, cost and compensation due to their unfair trade practice.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a Sony Experia C 2305 Mobile Phone with IMEI No.33653405-396750-9 from the opposite party No.3 for a price of Rs. 19,500/- on 05.03.2014. Opposite party No.1 is the importer, opposite Party No.2 is the dealer and opposite party No.3 is the retailer of Sony Mobile phones. The complainant is a very busy advocate and social activist. He purchased said mobile phone for his professional as well as social activities especially for internet browsing, data transfer, file transfer etc. During February 2015 complainant noticed the Wi-Fi, hot spot and blue tooth functions of said smart phone are not working. He immediately contacted opposite party No.3. Then opposite party No.3 stated that it may be due to software problem and advised him to update the latest software version from the Sony authorized service centre at Calicut. Since authorized service centre is at the,far away place in Calicut and due to the busy schedule complainant could go there only on 02.04.2014. After updating software the service center technician informed the complainant that it is not a software problem but the IC of said functions of the phone is not functioning, so the board of the mobile phone has to be replaced and it will cost more than Rs,7,000/-. The board of the smart phone getting damaged in a short period of one year of purchase is a manufacturing defect. The board of the smart phone is its main component and if it is damaged within in a short span of time the smart phone could not be used for its intended purpose. Selling a costly mobile phone with less quality component is a violation on consumer rights. The complainant who is heavily depending upon his smart phone for his professional and social activities suffered huge sufferings, strain and damages due to the mal-functioning of said phone. He had to spent a whole day for traveling to Calicut for availing service from the authorized service centre of Sony. The complainant calculate the damages suffered to him on these heads to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. The Opposite party No.1 & 2 are liable to take back the said smart phone and refund its price Rs.19,500/- also.
3. The cause of action for the petition arouse at Sulthan Bathery on 05.03.2014 when the complainant purchased the said mobile phone and last week of February 2014 when he notice the defect of mobile phone and on 26.02.2015 when the defect was informed to opposite party No.1 and on 02.04.2015 when the authorized service agent of opposite party No.2 at Calicut informed complainant to replace the board of mobile phone at his cost. Hence prays for an Order directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to refund the price of smart phone and also direct to pay cost and compensation.
4. Notices were served to all opposite parties and they filed vakath and not field version till 10.06.2015. Hence opposite party No.1 set ex-parte on 10.06.2015, opposite party No.2 also sought time for version but till 10.06.2015 no version filed. Hence opposite party No.2 also set ex-parte on 10.06.2015. Opposite party No.3's notice intimation served on 22.04.2014 and 23.02.2014 but unclaimed. Hence he is also set ex-pate on 18.05.2015.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the Bill issued by opposite party No.3 to the complainant for Rs.19,500/- for Sony C bearing IMEI No.33653405-396750-9.
6. On perusal of complaint, affidavit and document the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side
of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
7. Point No.1:- Since all the opposite parties are ex-parte the complaint can be believed in toto and the Forum opine that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
8. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite parties, they are liable to refund the price of mobile phone with cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of the mobile set ie Rs.19,500/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand and Five Hundred) with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred) as cost of the proceedings. Opposite parties are directed to comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for whole the amount. The complainant is also directed to return back the defective mobile set to the opposite parties when complying the order by the opposite parties.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of July 2015.
Date of Filing:06.04.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. T. M. Rasheed (Affidavit). Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Bill. Dt:05.03.2014.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
