Date of Filing: 18/08/2015

    Date of Order: 04/04/2017

ORDER

BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT

1.     This is the complaint filed in person under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service and praying for direction to the O.Ps to replacement of the handset Model T31 Panasonic and further to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that:

        The complainant purchased the mobile handset T31 bearing IMEI No.357338051708595 by paying an amount of Rs.4,595/- and accordingly O.Ps generated the said invoice.   Further during the end of March 2015 he has intimated the Aircel service provider store that the slim slot was bent when he went to install second sim in the handset.  Complainant further states that, since the month of 2015 the said mobile handset causing series of problems as phone hanging and screen.  On 25.5.2015 when the complainant visited the authorized service center and the receptionist removed the Sim No.1 and 2 and memory card from the handset for inspection.  They made the complainant to wait for four hours to install a new software and advise the complainant to observe after inserting back both the SIM.  The complainant alleges that there was no improvement after a week and visited the service center again and again they removed the SIM 1 and 2 and memory card for inspection and issued job sheet No.KJA SPKT 086615 P1 1443 dated 02.06.2015 and asked the complainant to report after week/10 days. On 15.06.2015 complainant deposited the handset to O.Ps for T.P (Touch Pad) replacement and warranty term mentioned in the above job sheet.  On 18.6.2015 O.P replaced the Touch Pad and handed over the mobile handset by inserting Sim 1 and 2 and memory card.  The complainant after reaching home found that Sim not responding on slot and thereafter complainant went to Aircel store and showed the handset on inspection. They confirmed that it was due to slot problem and not the SIM problem.  On next day complainant visited the Opposite service center and there informed slot contact point damaged and asked him to pay Rs.650/- for repair.  The complainant alleges that, the O.Ps themselves damaged the slot while removing the Sims and memory card from the handset. Therefore complainant demanded to replacement of the handset but the O.Ps did not respond to them inspite of several email communications. Hence this complaint.

3.     Upon issuance of Notice to the OP No.1 and 2 remained absent and hence O.Ps placed ex-parte.

4.   In order to substantiate the case of the complainant and complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. Also heard the arguments.

[

5.   On the basis of the averments made  in the complaint, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-

                (A)   Whether the complainant has proves

                         deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

 (B)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

       the relief prayed for in the complaint?

(C)   What order?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (A) and (B):  In the affirmative.

POINT (C):       As per the final order

for the following:

s

REASONS

POINT No.(A)& (B):-

7.     It is the specific allegation of the complainant is that, he purchased the mobile handset T31 bearing IMEI No.357338051708595 by paying an amount of Rs.4,595/- and accordingly O.Ps generated the said invoice.   Further during the end of March 2015 he has intimated the Aircel service provider store that the slim slot was bent when he went to install second SIM in the handset.  Complainant further states that, since the month of 2015 the said mobile handset was causing series of problems as phone hanging and screen.  When the O.Ps service center failed to resolve the problem and ultimately he approached the Aircel service center and on verification the problem lies with the mobile slot and not in the SIM Card.  The complainant further alleges that while removing SIM 1 and 2 and memory card from the handset, the O.Ps service center damaged the slot and inspite of the several email communications O.Ps failed to replace the new handset.

8.     In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence reiterating all the facts narrated in the complaint. On perusal of copy of the Tax Invoice dated 19.09.2014 it is evident that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset by paying an amount of Rs.4,595/- and the said tax invoice also clearly reveals that warranty period is given to the handset 12 months and other accessories for six months. On perusal of the records, it reveals that within the warranty period there is a problem in mobile slot and it is the duty of the O.Ps to resolve the problem by taking suitable repair of mobile slot at their cost.   However, the complainant alleges that inspite of his several email communications O.Ps did not respond. On non-appearance of the O.Ps despite service of notice and failed to answer the claim made by the complainant and all the allegations made in the complaint remained unchallenged.   When the warranty is in intact when the mobile hand set slot comes for repair and not resolving the problems it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Under the circumstances we hereby direct the O.Ps to repair the mobile handset slot for worthy condition and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings it will meets the ends of justice. For any reasons if O.Ps failed to repair the mobile handset slot as alleged by the complainant in such event O.Ps are directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,595/- by receiving back the mobile handset and all its accessories from the complainant. In such event O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.500/-  towards cost  of the proceedings along with the refund of the amount  and it will meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly, we answered these points in the Affirmative.

POINT (C):

9.     On the basis of the findings given on the point No.(A) and (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.
2. The O.P No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally hereby directed to repair the mobile handset slot for worthy condition and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
3. Failing which O.P No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund cost of the handset for a sum of Rs.4,595/- by receiving back the mobile handset and all its accessories from the complainant. Further O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings.
4. . The O.Ps are hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 4^th Day of April 2017)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

*Rak