Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/149/2014

K.Mahendran - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Sony India - Opp.Party(s)

R.Cauveri Sevan

04 Nov 2019

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 09.04.2014

                                                                               Date of Disposal : 04.11.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.149/2014

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 04^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

                                 

Mr. K. Mahendran,

C/o. Mr. A. Sabapathi,

No.3/96, Bharathi Nagar,

Madampakkam,

Guduvancherry,

Kanchipuram District – 603 202.                                  .. Complainant.                                                         

..Versus..

 

1. M/s. Sony India,

Represented by its Manager,

No.6A, Centennial Square,

Dr. Ambedkar Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.

 

2. M/s. Accel Frontline Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

No.160, Thiru Building,

Ground Floor, Greames Road,

Thousand Lights,

Chennai – 600 006.  

 

3. Saravana Stores (Tex.),  

Represented by its Manager,

No.45, Ranganathan Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                           ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant           : M/s. R. Cauveri Selvan & others

opposite parties 1 & 2                     : Ex-parte

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party  : M/s. M. Rajendiran & others

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to replace the old mobile with the new mobile instrument and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased a mobile phone from the 3^rd opposite party on 08.03.2013 for a sum of Rs.12,380/-.   The said mobile phone was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and its model number is ST 231-Sony Ericsson.  The complainant submits that the mobile phone instrument has not functioned even for two weeks.  Hence, the complainant took the mobile phone to the 3^rd opposite party dealer wherein he purchased on 18.03.2013.   The Sales Manager of the 3^rd opposite party instructed the complainant to take the mobile phone to the 2^nd opposite party.  Accordingly the complainant handed over the mobile phone instrument to the 2^nd opposite party inturn retuned the mobile phone to the complainant stating that it was repaired.  But the mobile phone was not functioned properly.  Once again, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party with request to  set  right  the  repair.    The  2^nd  opposite  party  refused  the  same and

instructed to meet the 1^st opposite party.   Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:05.08.2013.  Even after the receipt of notice, the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not sent any reply.   But the 3^rd opposite party sent reply shifted his burden / liability to the opposite parties 1 & 2.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.     In spite of receipt of notice the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not appeared before this Forum and hence, the opposite parties 1 & 2 were set ex-parte.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 3^rd opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 3^rd opposite party states that he is a dealer and has nothing to do with the repair of the mobile phone.  It is true that the complainant purchased the mobile phone.  As per the instruction manual, the complainant has liberty to approach the service centre of the manufacturer to rectify if there is any defect in the products.  The electronic goods always contains instruction manual along with the product which explained how to use the products and also covered with warranty note.  The complainant can approach the service centre of the manufacturer within the warranty period subject to the terms and conditions of the instruction manual.  If there is problem in the mobile, the complainant has to approach the authorized service centre to rectify the same.  But the 3^rd opposite party has nothing to do with the service.  The entire relief is against the manufacturer and not from the dealer i.e. 3^rd opposite party.  But in this complaint the 3^rd opposite party has arrayed unnecessary as a party.   The 3^rd opposite party states that the complainant should approach the service centre in any number of times within the warranty period for availing service.  Hence, there is no fault on the part of the 3^rd opposite party.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party and the complaint as against the 3^rd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 3^rd opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 3^rd opposite party.

5.      The point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the mobile instrument as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The opposite parties 1 & 2 after due service of notice remained absent and set ex-parte.  The complainant filed written argument.   The 3^rd opposite party has not filed any written argument and not turned up to advance any oral argument also.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version of the 3^rd opposite party, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased a mobile phone from the 3^rd opposite party on 08.03.2013 for a sum of Rs.12,380/- as per Ex.A1, copy of purchase bill.   The said mobile phone was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and its model number is ST 231-Sony Ericsson.  The complainant further contended that the mobile phone instrument has not functioned even for two weeks.  Hence, the complainant took the mobile phone to the 3^rd opposite party dealer where in he purchased on 18.03.2013.  The Sales Manager of the 3^rd opposite party instructed the complainant to take the mobile phone to the 2^nd opposite party.  Accordingly the complainant handed over the mobile phone instrument to the 2^nd opposite party inturn retuned the mobile phone to the complainant stating that it was repaired.  Ex.A2 is the copy of retail invoice / cash/memo /bill issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  But thereafter also, the mobile phone was not functioned properly.  Once again, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party with request to set right the repair.   The 2^nd opposite party refused the same and instructed to meet the 1^st opposite party proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:05.08.2013 as per Ex.A3.  Even after the receipt of notice, the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not sent any reply.   But the 3^rd opposite party alone sent reply shifted his burden / liability to the opposite parties 1 & 2 as per Ex.A4.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming compensation of cost.

7.     The contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the 3^rd opposite party is a dealer has nothing to do with the repair of the mobile phone.    Admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile phone.  As per the instruction manual the complainant has liberty to approach the authorized service center.   The 3^rd opposite party has nothing to do with the service.   The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service center remained ex-parte is liable to rectify the defects within the warranty period.   There is no prayer as against the 3^rd opposite party also.  But the claim is made against the 3^rd opposite party.   The alleged defects has not been rectified by the opposite parties is proved in this case.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to replace the complaint mentioned mobile phone of a brand new one with the same model within one month failing which, the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to repay a sum of Rs.12,380/- with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally are directed to replace the ST231- Sony Ericsson mobile phone with a  brand new one of the same model within one month, failing which, to repay a sum of Rs.12,380/- (Rupees Twelve thousand three hundred and eighty only) being the cost price of the said mobile and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 04^th day of November 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	08.03.2013	Copy of purchase bill
Ex.A2	18.03.2013	Copy of invoice from the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A3	05.08.2013	Copy of notice to the opposite parties 1 to 3 with acknowledgment
Ex.A4		Copy of reply notice form the 3rd opposite party

 

3^RD OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT