Complainant in person

Advocate Likhit Gandhi for Opponent No.1.

Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 exparte

Per Hon’ble Shri. Mohan Patankar, Member

                                     JUDGMENT

                                Dated 11^thJune 2014

[1]            The complainant is residing at Kothrud, Pune 38. He has filed present complaint for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opponent- Mobile Phone Company having its office at Delhi and carrying out their business at Pune. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows-

[2]            Complainant has purchased a mobile handset Model GT 19001 on 8/3/2012 for Rs.20,800/- from Mahendra Electronics and Electricals, situated at Erandwane, Pune 4. Copy of receipt is on record. The serial number is 357160045904266 and model is GT19001.  It was experienced by the complainant that when blue tooth device is disconnected, handfree listening was not working. Complainant submitted the handset for repairs to the service centre of the Opponent on 18/8/2012; but the problem was not solved. Eventhough the handset was repeatedly given for same repairs on 5/9/2012 and on 20/09/2012, the problem was not solved. It was informed by the service centre that, insptie of doing whatever possible options nothing remains for repair. The complainant requested the Support Team to replace the handset. The Opponents assured for the replacement within 20 days. However, Opponents again informed the complainant to submit it again for repair. Complainant sent e-mails to the Opponents, yet neither the problem was solved nor the replacement was given. As the complainant suffered lot of harassment, mental agony and financial loss, he has filed present complaint for deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for refund of cost of mobile i.e. Rs.20,800/-. He has further prayed for compensation for mental agony to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and cost of complaint Rs.2,000/-.

[3]            Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 remained absent despite of service of notice. Hence, complaint is proceeded exparte against Opponent Nos. 2 and 3.

[4]            Opponent No.1 filed written version and resisted the claim of complainant. It has denied all the allegations made by the complainant. It is contended that the complainant has made the improvements in the pleadings of his affidavit. Actually those pleadings are not drafted in the complaint. Hence, according to the Opponent No.1 contents of the affidavit cannot be read in evidence. Affidavit filed by the complainant is not legal, valid and maintainable as per the law.  It is further contended that the complainant used handset for more than five months  and during that period the complainant has not suffered any problem with the said handset. Complainant was not able to show the defects in front of expert technicians. He has given the handset for repairs to the Opponent No.1 thrice. After every repair, at the time of taking of delivery of the handset, he was satisfied with the repairs. Opponent has provided following services to satisfy the complainants. They [1] Upgraded software version [2] Changed Motherboard and [3] Replaced the port of Hands free. It is further stated that the problem might have occurred due to the non compatibility of blue tooth device adopted by the complainant. The said handsets are sold in large number and are working satisfactorily. On these grounds Opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

[5]            After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, pleadings and affidavits which are produced by both the parties, following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-

Reasons-

As to the Point Nos. 1 to 3-

[6]            It reveals from the Receipt which is produced by the complainant on record that he has purchased the disputed Mobile handset for Rs.20,800/- from the Opponent No.3 on 8/3/2012. During the warranty period, complainant faced problem of handfree utilization after removing blue tooth device. Opponents have not disputed that the handset was submitted thrice to the service centre at Pune and they have performed all the possible efforts and options to rectify the defect but the problem persisted. It is alleged by the Opponents that there was no defect in the handset. It is not cleared by the Opponents that, as to why the Opponents have accepted the handset for repairs thrice for service. So also, why Opponents have performed all possible options during its service to the said handset ? It is pertinent to note that, the problem was not noticed by the technicians of the service centre eventhough it was accepted for service three times. Hence, a legitimate inference can be drawn that the problem could not solved by the earlier services within the warranty period. Opponents have not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that certain guidelines or instructions were given to use specific blue tooth device for the handset which was purchased by the complainant. Hence, the Forum is of the opinion that, there were defects in the handset and as the defects could not be rectified within the warranty period, it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for refund of cost of mobile handset. He is also entitled to get amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for physical, mental and financial sufferings and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

                In the result we answer the points accordingly and pass following order-

                                        :- ORDER :-

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service by selling defective mobile handset to the complainant.
3. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund amount of Rs.20,800/-[Rupees Twenty Thousand and Eight Hundred only] to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to collect the Mobile Handset from the complainant.
5. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] towards compensation for mental, physical and financial sufferings to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
6. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.2,000/- [Rupees Two Thousand only] towards cost to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
7. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.

Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.

Place – Pune

Date – 11/06/2014