BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.184/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 12^th January 2018

Present:       1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT  

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                   

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

    3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                

                                            B.E., LLB., PGDCLP,    - MEMBER

Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and seeking refund of Rs.6,500/- with cost and damages.
2.     The mobile phone purchased by the complainant had problems with working on certain applications and the same has been handed over to the service centre for rectification, but technician reporting the water logged in the phone, returned the same without rectification.  Hence, the complaint, seeking damages for the mental agony and inconvenience caused.
3.     The opposite party filed its version denying the allegations as false.  The complainant never reported any defects with respect to non-functioning of the two applications.  The phone was liquid logged at the time of delivery of the same for rectification and the same has been mentioned in the job sheet. Thereby suggested for replacement of PCB, however the complainant insisted for free replacement, since the same was not covered under the warranty, the complainant’s request was rejected.  Therefore, denies the allegation of deficiency in service and hence not liable to pay damages and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     To prove the facts, both parties lead evidence by filing affidavit, and relied on several documents.  The complainant filing written arguments made oral submissions.  The opposite party not filed its written arguments.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by jurisdiction?
2. Whether the complainant establishes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for non-rectification of the defects in the mobile phone and thereby he is entitled for the relief sought?
3. To What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant purchased mobile phone on 14.05.2016 for a sum of Rs.6,499/- from opposite party’s retail shop situated at Mysuru city.  As such, the complainant filed the complaint which comes within jurisdiction of this Forum as per section 11(2)(c) of the Act.  Hence, contention of barred by jurisdiction is not justified.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
8.    Point No.2:- The complainant alleged that, the mobile phone purchased from the opposite party, had some problem only with respect to two specific applications namely, music application and whats app.  As such, intimated the same at opposite party’s service centre on 17.03.2017, where the service technician removed the screen guard and returned the phone, assured the problem is solved, but the problem still persisted.  Later on 05.05.2017 the service technician informed that, the phone was water logged and requires replacement of PCB, on chargeable basis.  Since the phone was within warranty, the complainant refused to pay the repair charges.  The opposite party rejected to repair the phone.  Hence, the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
9.    The opposite party contended that, the complainant visited the service center only on 05.05.2017, not on 17.03.2017, with a complaint of “touch screen not properly working”.  On examination found water logged, which was not covered under warranty, the repair charges were demanded.  But, the complainant refused to pay the repair charges.  Hence, the defects could not be rectified.  Hence the opposite party contended that, no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. On perusal of the material on record, the E-mail details established that, the complainant had approached the opposite party, on 27.03.2017 and onwards alleging the defects in the mobile phone and requested the opposite party service center, to rectify the defects.  The service technician never whispered about the damage caused to the PCB was due to water logged.  Further, the complainant established that the phone was in good working condition, except the working of two specific applications.  The service technician ought to have examined the problems in the phone thoroughly, and intimated any other defects and take appropriate steps to remove the defects, before returning the phone to the complainant.  It appeared, the opposite party evaded to provide proper service to the complainant on receipt of a complaint in respect of the product marketed by it.  This is certainly an unfair trade practice as such, the opposite party is liable to repair the defective mobile handset of the complainant, free of cost or in the alternate to refund the value of the mobile phone by receiving the defective phone.  Further, the opposite party is liable to pay damages for the deficiency in service.  Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.
11. Point No.3:- In view of the observations in point No.2, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to rectify the defects found in the mobile handset, free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of mobile phone or in the alternate, to refund the value of the mobile handset, i.e. Rs.6,500/- by receiving the defective handset, to the complainant, within 30 days of this order. In default, the opposite party is liable to pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day until compliance.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant, within 30 days of this order.  Failing to comply, the opposite party shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs.2,500/-, until compliance.    
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 12^th January 2018)