- Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member
- Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT.
1. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
This Complaint is filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain relief’s against them. Complaint is admitted on 3.3.2008.
The Complainant has purchased Sony Ericsson mobile hand set from the 1st Opposite Party on 24.9.2007 for a sum of Rs.3,400/-.
It is submitted that, after a short period of one month from purchasing the aforesaid mobile handset it is found defective and there was a problem of central button, no message display, no contact name and display number is blur and discharge of battery immediately. The Complainant‘s submits that, he has approached the 1st Opposite Party with the above problem and the 1st Opposite Party in turn directed the Complainant to approach 2nd Opposite Party for the purpose of its service. After 19 days the hand set was returned by saying that the set has been repaired. The Complainant submits that, after three days again there was same problem and immediately contacted the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the problems. The Complainant getting fedup to the service of the Opposite Parties has decided to get it replaced and approached the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties refused to replace the same. And thereafter the Complainant has wrote letter to the 1st Opposite Party on 26.11.2007 but the Opposite Parties failed to comply the demands and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as “The Act”) alleging deficiency in service seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to refund a sum of Rs.3,400/- and Rs.25,000/- claimed as compensation and cost of the litigation expenses.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed version. Opposite Party No.2 appeared in person and filed version by way of affidavit.
Opposite Party No.1 admitted the purchase of mobile hand set Sony Ericsson for Rs.3,400/-. But it is contended that, this Opposite Party is not the manufacturer of the product as soon as the Complainant informed the problem of the mobile set, this Opposite Party promptly directed the Complainant to 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party agreed to replace the mobile handset and the same was intimated to the Complainant in the month of January 2008 and contended that, there is no negligence or deficiency while rendering the service and also contended that the 2nd Opposite Party is ready to replace the handset with new one with the old set is handed over to the 2nd Opposite Party.
The 2nd Opposite Party filed affidavit stating that, the Complainant on 30.10.2007 came up with some problems and the same was repaired within 35 minutes and again approached on 2.11.2007 with a different problem (Auto off). On 14.11.2008 by changing the mother board and the handset was repaired and the same was informed on telephone 14.11.2007 and the same was collected by the Complainant on 17.11.2007. And thereafter this Opposite Party came to know through Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant was not satisfy with the repair and this Opposite Party agreed to replace with a new box piece but the Complainant did not come to collect the same and contended that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
3. On perusing the pleadings of both the parties that the points arise for our consideration are as follows:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the handset purchased from the Opposite Party suffers from manufacturing defect?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, the Complainant Sri.Dhananjaya (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C5 as listed in the annexure and answered the interrogatories. On behalf of Opposite Parties, One Sri. Prashanth Shenoy for Opposite Party No.1 and one Sri.Laxmish.M., Manager of Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit and served the interrogatories and got marked Ex. R1 to R5 as listed in the annexure.
We have heard arguments, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record. We answer the points are as follows:
REASONS
5. Points No. (i) to (iii):
It is undisputed fact that the Complainant purchased Sony Ericsson K220i item No.35619701-212034-5 for Rs.3,400/- from the 1st Opposite Party on 24.9.2007 vide invoice No. 1155 (as per Ex.C1) and the handset is within the warranty period (as per Ex C2).
The Complainant contended that, the mobile hand set purchased by him is a defective and not of the standard quality. The Opposite Party on the other hand has taken a contention that, on 3.10.2007 Complainant came up with some problem and it has been repaired within 35 minutes and there after on 2.11.2007 came up with different problem (Auto Off) and the same was repaired on 14.11.2008 by changing the mother board and the hand set was in perfect working condition and also submitted that since the Complainant was not satisfied with the repairs both the Opposite Parties agreed to replace the new handset by taking old handset.
From the above admission made by the Opposite Parties, it is proved beyond doubt that the handset supplied by the Opposite Parties is defective or otherwise no Opposite Parties company will come forward to replace the new handset in the place of old handset. We have perused the entire evidence as well as the documents placed by the parties before this Forum, wherein, we have noticed that the Opposite Parties ought to have replaced the handset when the Complainant made a demand in writing on 26.11.2007. Only after filing the complaint by the Complainant before this Forum, both the Opposite Parties came up with the version by stating that, they are agreed to replace the handset. Frin the above discussion it is proved beyond doubt that the handset supplied by the Opposite Parties is defective and the Opposite Parties should have replaced the handset at the earliest point of time inspite of replacing the important part i.e. mother board of the handset. The service rendered by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency and the handset proved to be defective.
From the above set of facts and documents, we can see that the handset was admittedly purchased on 24.9.2007 and the problems developed within the warranty period that also the mother board replaced.
As we know the telephone or the mobile handset is a means of communication. The communication system was required to be run effectively and efficiently by the Opposite Parties having regard to the statutory duties they are required to perform. The deficiencies in the system supplied by the Opposite Parties were such as were required to be attended immediately. If the Opposite Parties had not been able to attend thereto immediately, there would be a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties as immediate attention to such complaint’s was part of the contract.
However, in the present case, no doubt Opposite Parties attended the complaint immediately and repaired but the problems persisted and the Complainant demanded for replacement of the handset and apart from the legal notice Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon’ble Forum. The Opposite Parties should have replaced the handset at the earliest point of time.
In the present case, Complainant has specifically prayed for the return of the price paid by him and not the replacement of the hand set by a new one. The reason for such a course adopted by the complainant appears to be reasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case. We feel that, under the above circumstances, the best course to be adopted is to issue direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the entire amount collected by them by taking back the old handset. And Rs.2,000/- awarded as compensation and cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
- In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally hereby refund the entire amount collected by them by taking back the old handset. And Rs.2,000/- awarded as compensation and cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of August 2008).
PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)
APPENDIX
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
CW1 – Sri.Dhananjaya.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex C1 – 24.9.2007: copy of the Tax Invoice.
Ex C2 – 24.9.2007: copy of Warranty Certificate.
Ex.C3 – 6.11.2007: Copy of Service tag issued by the Opposite Party No.2.
Ex.C4 – 26.11.2007: Letter issued by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C5: 30.11.2007: Reply of Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
RW-1: Sri. Prashanth Shenoy for Opposite Party No.1
RW-2: Sri.Laxmish.M., Manager of Opposite Party No.2
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex R1 – Copy of Warranty Certificate.
Ex R2 –1.12.2007: Letter written by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex R3 – 4.12.2007: Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex R4 – 30.10.2007: Delivery Service Tag.
Ex R5 -2.11.2007: Delivery service Tag.
Dated:14.8.2008 PRESIDENT
Dated: 14.8.2008
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally hereby refund the entire amount collected by them by taking back the old handset. And Rs.2,000/- awarded as compensation and cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)
