BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 273/2010 Filed on 27/08/2010

Dated: 31..03..2011

Complainant:

T.K. Pramod Kumar, Thenganathu Veedu, Changankulangara, Vavvakkavu – P.O., Kollam.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Phone World, Ground Floor, Annas Arcade, Spencer Junction, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.

2. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt Ltd., 4^th Floor, Dak House, 18/17, WEA, Karol Bhagh, New Delhi –11

3. Sony Ericsson Service Centre, Accel, Trivandrum, “CHAHAYA”, TC 24/665, Mettukkada, Thycaud – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 25..03..2011, the Forum on 31..03..2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER:

The complainant had purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.7,350/- from the 1^st opposite party on 4/9/2009. From the very inception of use, it showed problems such as hanging and slow. It was very slow to open the video from the File Manager in the menu. The same was brought to their notice and as per their instruction the same was given to the Service Centre. The software was upgraded but the complaint still pursued. Even after repeated service and after replacing the memory card and mother board the complainant has not been rectified. Hence this complaint.

2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 remain exparte.

3. 3^rd opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: That the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in his complaint as the 3^rd opposite party as a good will gesture, is willing to give the full pack of W 395 handset. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of 3^rd opposite party and therefore they are not liable to give any compensation as claimed by the complainant in the complaint. The 3^rd opposite party further submits that as they are providing new mobile phone to the complainant the complainant's prayer for compensation and the rate of the mobile phone at the time of purchase has to be dismissed. The 3^rd opposite party submits that they have made their offer to the complainant but he is not accepting the same with an ulterior motive to coerce the 3^rd opposite party into submitting to his unlawful demands.

3. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P5. Opposite parties had no evidence.

The issues for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief c

4. Points (i) & (ii) : There is no dispute regarding the defects in the mobile phone since the opposite parties have not challenged the allegations levelled against them. Furthermore the 3^rd opposite party is willing to give the full parts of W 395 handset. But the complainant has sworn in his affidavit that, on 16/2/2011 the 3^rd opposite party had produced W595 model phone for replacement before this Forum but the phone offered is an outdated one and of much less value than the handset in dispute. The complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands uncontroverted. The documents produced by the complainant reveal that the handset had to be repaired several times. Furthermore, the admission and willingness on the part of the 3^rd opposite party to replace the handset with a new one confirms without any doubt that the handset supplied to the complainant is defective and in the above circumstance, the procedure contemplated under Sec 13 of the Consumer Protection Act need not be followed. Since repeated servicing and repairing of the handset has failed in resolving the problems encountered by the complainant, the same points to the existence of some serious defect in it if not a manufacturing defect. The act of not rectifying the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

5. Hence, we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the handset along with an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and costs.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs. 7,350/- with Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of the Order. On compliance of the above Order, the handset in dispute shall be kept by the opposite parties.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31^st day of March, 2011.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No. 273/2010

APPENDIX

1. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of cash receipt dated 4/9/2009

P2 : " Gate Pass Cum Delivery Challan

P3 : " Job Card dated 6/10/2009

P4 : " " 14/12/2009

P5 : " " 8/7/2010

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

4. Opposite parties documents : NIL

PRESIDENT