The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to refund the cost of the Mobile or refund Rs. 10,000/- the cost of the mobile handset to the complainant and to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for harassment and Rs 10,000/- towards the litigation expenses.
The complainant in the petition submitted that he purchased a Mobile handset bearing Model No. NOKIA-LUMIA-510 IMEI No. 353662053787727 and No. 6438158513174 form the OP NO-1 vide retail Invoice No. 782 dated 27.03.2013 for Rs. 10,000/- along with warranty certificate. Unfortunately after 10 months of its purchase, the handset and brought the same to the knowledge of OP No. 1 towards the rectification of defects. The complainant approached the OP NO-1 time and again to rectify the defects but despite several requests yielded no result on the other hand OP-1 directed the complainant to ask the manufacturer for its repair. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complaint suffered mentally, physically and financially.
The Ops contested this case and denied all material allegations raised against them by the complainant.
Heard the complainant. We have gone through the case in detail. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a Sony mobile hand set from the OP. No.1 on payment of Rs. 10,000/- on 27.03.2013 for use in the locality of Malkangiri and the OP NO-2 is its service centre undertaking services of Nokia Mobile through out un-divided district of Koraput which includes Malkangiri district. The mobile set of the complainant started giving problem after three month of its purchase for which the complainant exhibited the same before the Opposite Party No-1 and demanded replacement of the mobile but the OP-1 directed the complainant to ask the manufacturer for its repair.
The OP nO-2 in his written version has taken a plea that the OP No-1 Was not handed over the mobile set to him for its repair and the condition of the set can not be ascertained unless it is handed over to the them in this context we failed to understand even after filling the present complaint by the complainant, what prevented the Opposite Parties not to contact the complaint to know the actual position of the set without contacting the complainant the O.Ps slept over the matter. The Opposite Party-2&3 are having the wide range of expertise/man power and a big name in the business of mobile are required to contact the complainant in order to know the actual fact and the position of the mobile and come up with the clarity to explain the actual position of the mobile in question in support of their version. Expert engineer along with logical report explaining the technicalities ought to be brought on record because in the modern age each and every customer is having a legal right to get satisfaction for the each penny spent and Opposite Parties being service provider who are charging the market prices of mobile as per their own choice are duty bound to provide proper and adequate services obviously which is missing in this case. A lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite parties. In the first instances, they sold a defective mobile handset, to the complainant which started giving problem, during the warranty period. On the other hand, by not redressing his grievance, in a manner, they continued rubbing salt on his injuries. There days the mobile phones have become a need of the hour and a person, who purchase the same for his domestic use. The mobile hand set in question was purchased for a valuable consideration and when it did not work, obviously there must be frustration in the mind of the consumer. The complainant in the present case has been compelled to approach this Forum by spending his valuable time and money so as to get his grievance redressed. So the complainant has defiantly suffered mental pains, agony and harassment due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
Keeping in view the above discussion. The opposite party No- 2&3 are directed either to replace the mobile or refund Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) the cost of the mobile hand set within 30 days on receipt of a copy of this order failing which the O.P No.2&3 are liable to pay Rs. 50/- per day of default.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced in open Court on 31st October, 2014
