Smt. Sheela Jacob (President I/C):

The case is based on a consumer complainant filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The averments in the complainant in short, are as follows.

3. The Sony EPERIA C2104 mobile phone used by the complainant was damaged as its speaker and software damaged.  In order to cure the defect of the complainant entrusted the defective mobile phone to the 1^st opposite party’s service center on 01/04/2017.  After few days, 1^st opposite party returned the mobile set under the pretext that all defects were rectified properly.  But after few months, the mobile phone become defective.  Thereafter, the complainant entrusted the set to the 1^st opposite party for repairing on 10/11/2017.  After one week the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party.  But the complaint’s complaint was not rectified.  The complaint of the phone was occurred during the warranty period.  The defect of the set is manufacturing defect.  But the 1^st opposite party charged Rs.350/- for service charge even in warranty period.  Therefore the above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for an order directing the 1^st opposite party to rectify the defects of the mobile phone along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of this proceedings.

4. In response of the notice the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party entered appearance and filed separate versions.

5. The 1^st opposite party resisted the complaint by filing a detailed version raising the following contentions.

6. The complaint is not maintainable either in low or on facts.  However the opposite party would admit that the complainant approached him and entrusted Sony mobile phone for repairing the software that he repaired the same and charged Rs.350/- from the complainant, as his institution center is not a recognized service center of Sony Company and by fully understanding the fact that the complainant approached his service center and entrusted the mobile phone to repair the software.  However after repairing the software the mobile phone was in working condition and the fact was convinced by the complainant and received back the same.  Hence the complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service while entrusting the mobile phone on 01/04/2017 the opposite party has issued job sheet stating the terms and conditions and by accepting the conditions in the job sheet he got repaired the software.  In the circumstances the complainant is not get any of the reliefs sought for the complaint.  The opposite party has promptly made service in the mobile phone entrusted to him and returned the same to the complainant and by convincing the facts the complainant taken back the mobile phone from his service center.  On 10/11/2017 again the complainant approached the service center and entrusted the mobile phone as the mobile phone become complaint. 

7. One Mr.Manaf, friend of the complainant took back the mobile phone after checking and confirming all its functions.  Thereafter if any damage has been caused to the mobile phone was due to the misuse of the same by the complainant and the opposite party is not responsible for the said damage.  The complaint has been filed with malafied intention to obtain free repair of the damaged mobile phone.  The 1^st opposite party further prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

8. The 2^nd opposite party filed separate written version.  The main contentions raised in the written version are as follows. 

9. Complaint is not maintainable either in low or on facts.  The complainant had not mentioned any details about the Sony mobile phone like IME1 number, date, place etc. 2^nd opposite party could not find any details with respect to the aforesaid mobile phone.  So the mobile phone in question was never brought to any of the authorized service center of 2^nd opposite party.  However by suppressing and correcting material fact the complainant has approached this Forum with uncleaned hands and with ulterious motive.  There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  The allegations of the complainant are only fallacious without any proof.  The complainant has not stated any details of the mobile phone in the complaint conveniently to mislead the Honorable Forum with respect to the service history of the said phone.  The allegation of mental agony, financial constrains etc. are absolutely baseless and the same are denied.  The complainant is not entitled for any replacement or compensation as claimed.

10. In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for         consideration are whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties. 

11. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for in the complaint reliefs and costs.  When the case was taken up for recording evidence the complainant present and file proof affidavit and got marked as Ext.A1 series.  But the opposite parties who filed the written version by themselves have not turned up nor cross examined the complainant. 

12. Heard the complainant perused the records.  The main grievance of the complainant is that he brought his damaged Sony mobile phone for repairing at the 1^st opposite party’s service center on 01/04/2017.  The 1^st opposite party repaired the mobile phone’s software and charged Rs.350/-.  He has issued that job sheet dated 01/04/2017 stating the terms and conditions of the said job sheet he entrusted the mobile phone for repairing the software that he has also made necessary service in the mobile phone and refused the same after convincing the service done by the 1^st opposite party and the complainant was also convinced with the mobile set was in a working condition.  It is further alleged that by fully understanding the fact that his shop is not the authorized service center of Sony mobiles, the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to repair the software.  Though such a contention is raised by the 1^st opposite party in the written version the complainant has not denied the above facts in his proof affidavit.  After seven month, the complainant approached the service center and entrusted the mobile phone for rectifying the complaint of the speaker.  The complaint’s friend taken back the mobile phone after checking and confirming all its functions.  It is true that Ext.A1 series documents would show that the complainant approached two times 1^st opposite party’s service center.  In Ext.A1 series the name of the customer in Jet.  The complainant could not prove that he is the same person.  The complainant’s allegation is that the said mobile phone become defective during its warranty period and it was not rectified by the opposite parties in spite of the warranty and the complainant’s request for rectifying the defect.  But the complainant has not produced any materials to prove that the mobile phone become defective during its warranty period. 

13. The contention for the 1^st opposite party is that the service center is not the authorized service center of Sony Company the complainant has not denied the same.  The name of the institution of the opposite party itself would not indicate that it is not a service enter of Sony Company.  The above contention also remains undisputed in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant.  The deposition of PW1 that he had no complaints against 2^nd opposite party.  In the circumstances even if the complainant is not cross examined by the opposite parties and no independent evidence has been adduced by the opposite parties the case of the complainant is not proved.  Case of the complainant that the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is not proved especially when the 1^st opposite party has issued two job sheets.  In the circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for.  The points answered accordingly. 

14. In the result the complainant stands dismissed.  The parties shall suffer their respective costs.   

Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of April, 2019.                                                                                                                   

                                                                 (Sd/-)

                                                                                    Smt. Sheela Jacob,

                                                                                         (President I/C)

Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)      : (Sd/-)                   

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 series : Bills dated 10/11/2017 & 01/04/2017 issued by 1^st opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:  Nil.

                                                                                                                       (By Order)

             Copy to:-

1. John.V.Joy,

    Vadakkedathu Mattappallil, Omalloor, Imali, Omalloor.

2. The Service Manager,

Noviacom Communications & Electronics,

Near Pvt. Bus Stand, Pathanamthitta.

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

A-31, Mohan Corporate Industrial Estate,

Madhura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.

2. The stock file.