IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM A & N ISLANDS AT PORT BLAIR

C.D. CASE NO 01 OF 2011

                     Smti. Sheela Pradeep…………………………...................Complainant.

                                                    -Versus-

    Shri P. Ismail, Proprietor, M/s Shopping Singapore…….Opposite Party.

Date of Judgement: - On 29^th Day of April, 2014.

AWARD

The fact leading to this case in short is that the Complainant had purchased a Sony Ericsson mobile set bearing No: W395 IMEI: 358767035066754 from the O.P, M/s Shopping Singapore, the proprietor of which is Shri P. Ismail on 20/01/2010 for a sum of Rs. 6,500/- with one year warranty. But after about 9 months and 15 days, the said mobile developed some problem and she handed over the same along with the photo copy of bill to the shopkeeper on 02/11/2010. Having inspected the set, the shopkeeper informed her that the said set was to be sent to Sony Ericsson Company for repairs. Accordingly, the O.P took the mobile set on proper receipt. Then after about 15 days when Complainant went there to the shop she found that the said set was not sent for necessary repair work and the shopkeeper told her that due to mistake it was not sent and she was advised to come after about 10 days. Ultimately on 05/01/2011 she went to the shop and got back the set but she had to pay Rs. 850/- towards the cost of strip which was changed. But again on 11/01/2011 the said set developed some problem of display and could not be used. When she contacted the O.P she was told that the same could not be repaired anymore and he would not take any responsibility despite the same being within the period of warranty and thereafter she lodged the complaint seeking relief in the form of compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,700/- on different counts.

      The O.P contested the case by filing a written statement denying the material allegations of the Complainant though admitting about the purchase of the said set from them. The contentions of the O.P is that there was no technical fault on the said mobile set and for the physical damage the O.P has no responsibility. So O.P prayed for the dismissal of the instant case.

      The points for consideration accordingly:-

1. Is the case maintainable?
2. Has the Complainant a reasonable grievance against the O.P?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
4. To what other relief or reliefs, if any, is the Complainant entitled?                     

      The petitioner Smti. Sheela Pradeep examined herself as PW-1 while Shri Abdul Latheef, Manager of O.P, M/s Shopping Singapore examined as O.PW-1. The Complainant produced 2 original cash memos which were marked as Exhibit 1 and 2 respectively.

FINDINGS

All the issues are taken up together for consideration.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, at the time of argument has submitted about the deficiency of services shown by the O.P in not taking the mobile set for repair from the Complainant on 11/01/2011 when the set developed problem for the second time. According to him, O.P shirked his responsibility even though it was within the period of warranty. Ld. Advocate has also argued that there was technical fault in the mobile set bought by his client from the O.P and therefore, O.P ought to have taken the set for necessary repair work and done whatever required in making the set fault free.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P however, has argued that the warranty on the mobile set was there for technical fault only and not for physical damage. It is alleged by him that as there was physical damage in the set the Complainant cannot get any relief whatsoever.

We have gone through the contentions of both the parties including the evidence adduced by them. We have also considered the documents namely, the original cash memos issued by the O.P. Exhibit-1 is the original cash memo issued at the time of purchase of the mobile set by the O.P on 20/01/2010 while Exhibit-2 is the cash memo dated- 05/01/2011 for Rs. 850/-. Strangely enough, the name of the person in whose favour these documents were issued is not mentioned in the cash memos or cash bills. However, these documents were produced by the Complainant as the documents issued to her by the O.P. These 2 documents were exhibited without any objection. In fact, O.P has not at all disputed about the veracity of these 2 documents. On the basis of all these and the other evidence, we found, admittedly, the Complainant had purchased the Sony Ericsson set from the shop of the O.P on 20/01/2010 for Rs. 6,500/-. The Complainant has also claimed that there was a warranty period of one year from the date of purchase which in fact has also not been denied by the O.P.

According to Complainant, the said mobile set developed some problem for which it was taken to O.P’s shop and it was received by O.P for servicing by making one endorsement on the reverse side of Exhibit-1. This fact has also not been specifically denied by O.PW-1. Moreover Exhibit-1 shows that O.P received the said mobile set for necessary repairing/servicing work from the Complainant on 02/11/2010.

The Complainant has stated that she was informed by the O.P that repairing work could not be done in the islands and the set is required to be sent to Sony Ericsson Company in the mainland and subsequently, O.P delivered the set to her after it is said to have come back from the mainland. This contention of the Complainant has also not been specifically denied by the O.P. It was not disclosed by the O.P at that time that the fault in the said mobile set was not technical. All these have led us to believe about the technical fault in the mobile set as alleged by the Complainant which is also going to be vindicated by the failure of the O.P in producing any certificate or evidence of any expert or any qualified person in the field of technology used in the mobile set. No paper, whatsoever, was also produced and shown to the Complainant by the O.P. about any examination or checking of the mobile set which is claimed to have done by the company in the mainland.

It is to be pointed out that for change of strip on the set, the O.P charged Rs. 850/- from the Complainant (vide Exhibit-2) and obviously, this has no connection with the repair work claimed to have been made in the mainland.

It is found that the Complainant got back the mobile set on 05/11/2011 from the O.P after it came back from the mainland. But again it started giving trouble on and from 11/01/2011. This makes it amply clear that the set was not made fault free. It is alleged by the Complainant that the O.P refused to take the set again for checking it for doing necessary repair work. The Complainant during her cross-examination has expressed that she is ready to take that mobile set if the O.P gets it repaired. It is not pointed out by the O.P as to what kind of physical damage was done to the set when it was taken to him by the Complainant on 11/01/2011.

From the materials on record and also from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the mobile set might be defective which could be detected within the period of warranty but the O.P failed or neglected to pay attention to the Complaints thereby giving rise to a reasonable grievance to the Complainant. And that being so, the Complainant is entitled to get the relief in this case.

The nature of complaints, alleged repeated incidents of showing defects in the mobile set within the period of warranty which were not denied by the O.P coupled with his ultimate refusal of taking back the mobile set for checking on 11/01/2011 when the set was produced to him by the Complainant, only reveal an attitude on the part of the O.P. of a tendency of shirking his responsibility which may arise from his belief or anxiety that the set has become beyond repairable and cannot be made for use at all.

In the circumstances, we view that passing of an order for replacement of the mobile set in question with a new one may not be justified and feasible in view of the fact that similar problem may crop up with the new set and the O.P may also display a similar attitude like in the present case. The only order that can reasonably be made in this case is to refund the amount paid by the Complainant for her mobile set and also of course with some consideration for the harassment meted out to her.

Therefore, it is,

Ordered

that the instant C. D. case be and the same is allowed on contest. The petitioner is entitled to get refund of the amount of Rs. 6,500/- which she had paid to the O.P for her mobile set. She is also entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2000/-.

The O.P is directed to pay the said amount of compensation of Rs. 8,500/- i.e. (Rs. 6,500/- + Rs. 2000/-) to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which, Complainant is at liberty to realize the said amount in accordance with the law.

Let copies of this order be given to both the parties free of cost.