Ex–P A R T E O R D E R
PER SHRI. S.S.PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding the defective mobile instrument manufactured by Opposite Party No.2and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. The facts of the case as stated by the Complainant are that, he purchased the mobile instrument Model No. 3310 Metro from Panna Mobile Centre, Thakurdwar,Mumbai–400 002, on 20/06/2010 for Rs.4,800/-. The Complainant further stated that there was a warranty of one year from the date of purchase.
2) The Complainant has further started that the mobile instrument was sold to the Complainant with assurance that in the event of defects in the mobile, it would be replaced/repaired within 2 days.
3) The Complainant has further averred that after 4 months of purchase the mobile piece the following defects surfaced.
a) Mobile piece was getting hanged.
b) Hardware problem.
c) Mobile was automatically getting switched off.
As a result of which the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 in September, 2010. Opposite Party No.1 is the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.2 (10/09/2010). On 30/11/2010 the Complainant was told by Opposite Party No.1 that due to unavailability of some parts and hardware, it is not possible to get it repaired. Therefore, the Complainant will get new mobile piece from the Opposite Party No.2.
The Complainant further handed over the kit of mobile piece to the Opposite Party No.1. After a waiting for long time, the Complainant received a telephone call from Opposite Party No.1 for refund of money. Accordingly in July, 2011, he approached the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 showed him a cheque prepared by Opposite Party No.1 in the name of Umesh Sonar. It could have been in the name of Umesh Ahirrao. He explained to Opposite Party No.1 that his name is Umesh Ahirrao and not Umesh Sonar but the Opposite Party did not handover the correctly written cheque to the Complainant till date.
4) The Complainant has further stated that due to the defective handset mobile he suffered mental agony and physical harassment. Therefore, he has prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.4,800/- to the Complainant being the cost of the defective mobile handset, Rs.50,000/- compensation for mental trauma etc. Rs.1 Lac for monetary loss to the Complainant, interest on the above amounts and Rs.5,000/- as legal cost of this complaint etc.
5) The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties. Notices were served on the Opposite Parties. However, the Opposite Parties did not appear before this Forum. Therefore, the matter proceeded ex-parte. The Complainant then filed his affidavit of evidence and written argument wherein he reiterated the above mentioned facts stated in his complaint.
6) We perused the complaint and the document attached to it and our findings are as follows.
The Complainant had purchased a mobile handset 3310-Metro–Samsung Metro (instrument) from Panna Mobile Centre, Thakurdwar, Mumbai on 20/06/2010 within 6 month’s warranty for Rs.4,800/-. The said instrument has been manufactured by Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.1 is the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 is carrying on its business in the local jurisdiction of this Forum. The above aid mobile handset was found defective during the warranty period of six months. We carefully examined the job-sheet produced by the Complainant. It is dated 10/09/2010 i.e. during 3 months of its purchase it became defective i.e. there was hardware problem, it was getting hanged and sometime it was automatically getting switched off. Therefore, these defects were reported to the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 issued the job-sheet vide Ex.‘B’ to the Complainant.
7) It is also pertinent that the tax invoice issued by the dealer dtd.20/06/2010 bearing No.2066 clearly stated that “all the mobile phones under warranty will be taken care at the respective service centre, thereby we are not responsible of the mobile which is under warranty at our shop. All mobiles phone Accessories 6 months warranty at the respective company’s service centre.”
8) As per the above term mentioned in the receipt (Tax invoice) issued by the dealer, it is the liability of Opposite Party No.1 to take care of defective mobile phones under warranty and the selling dealer has withdrawn from its liability. Therefore, the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.1 when he found the above said mobile phone defective as stated above. It was the responsibility of Opposite Party No.1 to repair and give it to the Complainant defect free. From the papers and averments of the Complainant in affidavit it is clear that the Opposite Party No.1 failed to comply with his liability and it had not taken care of the defective mobile phone. Thus, it is liable for deficiency in service. The Opposite Party No.2, being manufacturer of the mobile phone is also liable for this defective piece of the mobile phone.
9) It is also seen from the averment that Opposite Party No.1 was ready to handover the cheque for the amount of Rs.4,800/- to the Complainant but due to some dispute in the name, the Complainant did not accept the same. In this respect the Tax invoice is in the name of only Umesh. The Complainant claims that he is Umesh Shantaram Ahirrao. The job card states the name as Umesh Sonar. The Complainant had explained that Sonar is his cast and Ahirrao is his surname. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 should have prepared the cheque as per the request of the Complainant and obtained his signature with consultation of Panna Mobile Centre from whom the Complainant has purchased the mobile phone. However, this has not been done by the Opposite Party No.1. To our candid view as per job card and averments of the Complainant in his affidavit, the mobile phone of model 3310 – IMEI No.352336044788741501 was defective and Opposite Party No.1 has not repaired it. It is lying with Opposite Party No.1 only. The Complainant has used this phone only for 2 ½ months. Under these circumstances it is the liability of both the Opposite Parties to provide defect free new model 3310 Samsung Metro Mobile Phone to the Complainant. However, the prayers of the Complainant for compensation and cost are exorbitant and not just. Therefore, we pass the order as follows –
“O R D E R
1. Complaint No.82/2012 is partly allowed.
2.Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to provide a defect free new Samsung mobile phone of
Model No.3310 Samsung Metro to the Complainant. In alternative, if this model is not available, the Opposite
Parties are directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.4,800/- (Rs.Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only), towards the cost
of this mobile phone.
3.Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay jointly and/or severally the compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three
Thousand Only) to the Complainant for mental agony caused to the Complainant due to deficiency in service on
the part of Opposite Party No.1.
4.Opposite Part No.1 & 2 are also directed to comply with the above said order within 30 days from the receipt of
copy of this order.
5. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
