Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT The Opposite Party No.1 is a dealer and the Opposite Party No.2 is the service centre. The Complainant purchased a mobile handset from the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; on 2/8/2008 for price of an amount in sum of Rs.4,990/-. The Complainant had kept the mobile for charging for a period of four hours. Still then, the mobile handset did not show signs of charging complete. The Complainant went to the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; and handed over the mobile handset to find out the problem. [2] The Complainant again visited the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; and the Complainant was asked to come on the next day. As assured, the Complainant again went to the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; and he was informed that battery of the mobile handset has been replaced. However, the Complainant refused to accept the delivery of the mobile handset on the ground that it was in the custody of the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; for a period of more than seven days. The Complainant insisted for replacement of the piece, which was refused by the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer. There had been communications between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, by e-mails and ultimately, the Complainant filed present consumer complaint before this Forum, making allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and sought direction, as against the Opposite Parties, to refund the cost of the mobile handset and to pay him compensation in sum of Rs.50,000/-. [3] Pursuant to the notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; appeared and contested the complaint by filing its written version of defence and explained that charging icon did not blink, which created an impression that mobile handset was not charging. Otherwise, the mobile handset was working well. This defect was removed, but the Complainant refused to take delivery of the mobile handset and insisted for replacement. According to the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and it was not guilty of deficiency in service. [4] The Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; filed its separate written version of defence and took stand that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and also took stand that the Complainant insisted for replacement of the mobile handset, which demand was not justifiable. [5] The Complainant filed his rejoinder to the written versions of defence, as filed by the Opposite Parties. Parties to the complaint proceeding have also filed their respective affidavits of evidence and copies of relevant documents. The Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; also filed its written notes of arguments. [6] We have heard the Complainant in person. [7] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents as well as written notes of arguments filed by the parties. [8] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved that both the Opposite Parties or either of them are guilty of deficiency in service? | YES. Proved only as against the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer. | 2. | To what relief the Complainant is entitled to? | Direction to the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; as per final order. | 3. | What order? | The complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [9] The Complainant purchased a mobile handset on 2/8/2008 and according to the Complainant, after the handset was put for charging, it did not give signs to indicate that charging was complete. Then, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; on 6/8/2008 and handed over the mobile hand-set to the store-keeper of the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; and explained the alleged fault in the mobile handset. The Complainant was asked to come on the next day. The Complainant visited the showroom of the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; on the next day i.e. on 7/8/2008, but he was informed that the mobile handset was at the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; and the Complainant was asked to come on the next day. On that day, the mobile handset was not ready. Ultimately, on 11/8/2008, store-supervisor of the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; informed the Complainant that there was no fault with the mobile handset. When the Complainant again explained alleged fault, the Complainant was asked to come on the next day. Ultimately, on 14/10/2008, on repairs, the mobile handset was offered to the Complainant and the Complainant refused to accept the same since the mobile handset was at the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; for a period of one week. [10] Written version of defence, as filed by the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; shows that there was some fault with the mobile handset and the averments in paragraph (02) of the written version of defence, as filed by the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; reveals that charging icon did not blink, which created an impression that mobile handset was not charging. This was certified by the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; and on repairs, the mobile handset was working well. This statement in the written version of defence, as filed by the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; shows that there was some defect in the mobile handset, though not manufacturing defect, but it generated wrong impression in the mind of the user that the battery of the mobile handset did not accept charging. That led the Complainant to number of visits to the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; and ultimately, the mobile handset was repaired. All these facts establish deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer. So far as the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; is concerned, it is not guilty of deficiency in service since it is not established that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. [11] The Complainant insisted for replacement of the mobile handset on the ground that it was in the custody of the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; for a period of one week. Having regard to the nature of the complaint and the defect, which had to be removed, we find that this demand on the part of the Complainant was rather unreasonable. The Complainant could have insisted for proper demonstration of the mobile handset, could have insisted for assurance of free servicing in the event of recurrence of such problem in future. However, the Complainant straightway insisted for replacement of the mobile handset. In view of the fact that the mobile handset is repaired and the alleged defect has been removed, we propose to give a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; to hand-over the same mobile handset to the Complainant, free from any defect. In addition to that, we propose to give direction to the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; to pay to the Complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.3,000/-, which would include compensation towards mental agony and costs of the proceeding. With this, we proceed to pass the order as below:- ORDER The complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; is hereby directed to hand-over to the Complainant, the delivery of the same mobile handset, free from any defect. The Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; shall also pay to the Complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and costs. The complaint, as against the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; stands dismissed. Rest of the claims of the Complainant stands rejected. Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | | 
