DATE OF FILING-6.3.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL- 15.1.2014
O R D E R
Miss S.L.Pattnaik,President
The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties( in short the O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service.
In brief, the case of the complainant is that on dt. 5.8.2012 he purchased a mobile hand set model ‘Sony EricsonST 251(XFERIA-U) bearing IMEI No.352266059868316 from Opposite Party No.1namely M/s. Mobinet,Gandhinagars,Main Road,Berhampur for
-2-
Rs.16,000/- only with the terms and conditions as stipulated in the warranty card issued at the time of purchase.
The O.P.No.1 is the authorized seller of Sony brand mobile. The O.P.No.2 is the Chief of the Organisation handling the issue of importing the mobile handset and marketing in India on behalf of the manufacturer. The O.P.No.3 is the Manager of the customer care cell and the O.P.No.4 is the authorized service centre of the company. At the time of purchase of the said mobile set, the Retail Invoice bearing No.4424 dt. 5.8.2012 with warranty coverage of one year was issued by the O.P.No.1 showing purchase of the mobile.
According to the complainant, the set from inception was getting over heated and developed various other defects. So the complainant immediately reported the matter to the O.P.No.1. Then on the advise of the O.P.No.1 the set was made over for rectification to O.P.No.4 on dt. 17.11.2012 who returned the set after 19 days i.e. on 30.11.2012 by changing the mother board with IMEI No.352266057353620 . On observation of repetition and additional defects the set was again made over to the O.P.No.4 for check on 8..12.2012, 12.12.2012 and 18.12.2012 for rectification who returned the set said to have been repaired after about 16 days that is on 3.1.2013. This time also the mother board of the set was changed with IMEI No.353561051437808. Even after the above repairs, the set did not operate satisfactorily. As per the instruction of Mr.Subhendu of Sony office at Bhubaneswar, the set was again made over to the O.P.No.4 on 6.2.2013 vide order No.113020600444 but the set has not been returned to the complainant till date and is returned by the O.P.No.4 in its custody. The complainant further submitted that the mother board being the heart of the mobile set and its replacement twice within five months is certainly unacceptable and adequately proves that a defective set was sold to the complainant leading to unfair trade practice. The complainant further pleaded that due to the illegal act of the O.Ps the complainant purchased another mobile set for Rs.10,499/- vide Invoice No.SON-B/C-R/0178/13-14 dt. 7.7.2013 from M/s. Bharat Infocom,Berhampur. The complainant further by way of amendment seeks additional damage of Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- since the manaufacturing company is retaining the ‘sold set’ causing inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed for directions to O.Ps. to refund a sum of Rs.56,399/- with interest and compensation alongwith other reliefs.
-3-
The complainant has filed certain documents which are marked Annexure 1 to 16 respectively to prove his case along with citations which are attached to the case record.
Notices were duly served on the Opposite Parties and the case was posted for appearance and version. The Opposite Parties entered their appearance through learned counsels but subsequently did neither filed their written versions nor contested the case. As a result, the Opposite Parties were set ex-parte on dated 25.11.2013 and heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant on the date fixed for hearing.
We have gone through the case of the complainant and perused the case record and documents relied on by the complainant. We have also perused the written notes of arguments and heard the case at a length. On careful consideration of the complaint petition, it is clear that the purchase of the mobile phone for the Opposite Party No.1 is proved from the copy of invoice annexed in the case record. Copy of warranty condition clearly shows that the mobile set was defective under warranty period. Copy of service job sheet filed by the complainant telling about the defect in the mobile set mentioning the nature of complaint “No Display”,handing, restarting, heating, battery problem and others and in warranty category it mentioned as “in warranty”
The Opposite Parties were also neither contested in this case to counter that there is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile nor returned the handset to the complainant after complete repair nor exchanged the mobile set with a new one. So the complainant purchased a new mobile set of model LG-E 450 is proved from the copy of retail invoice bearing No.SON-BIC-R-0178/13-14 for Rs.10,499/- from Bharat Infocom. The three numbers of Job sheets clearly show the repeated defects of mobile set and repeated visit of the complainant to the O.P.No.4.
The Opposite Parties have also not filed their version and also failed to adduce any evidence before the Forum that there is no manufacturing defect in the said phone. This clearly shows that they are willfully disobeying the orders of the Forum. The defect occurred in the said mobile which the complainant made aware to the Opposite Parties within the warranty period, which was not replaced or rectified by the Opposite Parties in due course of time amounts to utter deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties to the customer.
Due to these acts and attitude of the Opposite Parties and intentional delay to rectify the defect the complainant has not only suffered mentally but also got financial loss and
-4-
physical harassment and the purpose of purchasing of mobile set by him has also been frustrated.
Hence, the gross negligence and deficiency of service lies with the Opposite Parties and they are liable jointly and severally to compensate the complainant from what he suffered. This Forum by relying upon a citation passed by Chhatisgarh State Commission,Raipur in Krisna Kumar Sahu Vrs. Manager,Jai Shrei Electronics and others reported in l2010(1)CPR 149 where it is held that “ it is the duty of manufacturer/dealer to repair defect in a product during warranty period within a reasonable time. We also rely on the decision of Hon’ble State Commission,Goa in the case of Sai Cellular Services Vrs.Devdatta S Naik reported in I(2013) CPJ 26. In the light of the above decisions of law, we allow the case. The harassments of the consumer mentioned above is sufficient to draw inference that the set was manufacturing defect.
Besides that, we would like to point out that though the O.Ps appeared in this case through learned counsels, but subsequently neither filed their written version nor preferred to contest the case. This shows their indifferent attitude towards a genuine consumer problem of a bonafide consumer. We are, therefore, constrained to accept the uncontroverted allegations of the complainant that the said mobile set was inherent manufacturing defect. As the said mobile set was defective and for that the complainant has been suffered a lot , the O.Ps are bound to compensate the said loss.
In the result, we allow the case of the complainant ex-parte against the Opposite Parties. As far as compensation is concerned, we feel that the complainant is entitled for the cost of his mobile set amounting to Rs.16,000/-. It is also a fact on record that during the pendency of the case, the complainant was forced to purchase one new mobile set amounting to Rs.10,499/- due to the indifferent attitude of the O.Ps. Thus, the said loss to be compensated by the O.Ps since the complainant is a responsible Officer who is working as Member of Permanent Lok Adalat and due to that he faced a lot of problems during his official work. We, therefore, quantify the loss of Rs.10,499/- towards purchase of new mobile set unnecessarily and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment for the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
Hence, we order that the Opposite Parties are to refund Rs.16,000/-(Rupees sixteen thousand) the cost of the Mobile Set as discussed above to the complainant. We further direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.20,499/-(Rupees twenty thousand four hundred ninty nine) to the complainant towards compensation in favour of the complainant for the loss,
-5-
damage and harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. We also allow a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand) as cost of litigation to be paid by the Opposite Parties to the complainant. The above order has to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The case is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 15th day of January,2014.
Sd/-Dr.N.T.Sahu Sd/-Ms.S.L.Pattnaik
I AGREE(MEMBER) PRESIDENT
