ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as O.Ps) alleging the deficiency in service in not repairing the mobile handset and for refund of Rs.10,500/- being the cost of the same along with 18% interest from the date of making the payment, for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service for Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental shock, physical suffering and loss of time and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant purchased a mobile set from OP1 Xperia XA1 model on 5^th November 2018 by paying Rs.10,500/- and it has a manufacturing warrantee for one year.  As there was some “touch screen problem” he handed over the same 22^nd June 2019 to OP1, who is the service provider.  On 24^th June 2019, he got a message that the mobile set has been repaired and it is ready for delivery. When he went there, he was informed that the repair is not yet complete and asked to come four or five days later.  When he visited on 29^th June 2019 again, he was informed that the same has not been repaired and it would take three or four working days. Insptie of repeated enquires and request, they have not repaired the same and handed over the same and on 17^th august 2019 they informed to collect the same.  Even though it was under warrantee for a period of one year, OP did not repair the same even by taking 45 days for the same and left with no alternative he had to purchase a new mobile set.  In view of this, he is not interested to get the said mobile repaired and inspite of demanding OP1 to refund the amount, the same has not been done, and hence the complaint.

3.      Notice sent to Op1 through RPAD is served and the one sent to OP2 was delivered as per the postal track record.  Since both of them remained absent, they are placed exparte.

4.      In order to prove the case, complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

5.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

6.     POINT No.1 AND 2:-

   In the affidavit evidence filed, complainant has reiterated the content of complaint. He has produced Ex.P1 the cash bill wherein he has paid Rs.10,500/- to purchase Xperia mobile set on 5^th November 2018.  He has produced Ex.P4 the acknowledgment issued by OP2 for having received the said mobile set in respect of the complaint of “back button and home button not working. Data loose agreed sim and MMS returned”.  This is on 22^nd June 2019.  According to the complainant the same was not repaired and not handed over. In one of the emails dated 21^st August 2019, it is mentioned as “understood from your team that we have made the arrangements of replacement of the set. But currently I am not looking for any replacement, since already I have purchased the mobile set after waiting one month, I need money back with penalty. What you have done and this is the final email and later I need to move to District Consumer Forum.” This is written to sony team, sony mobile customer support.  No other email correspondences have been produced.  From the documents produced, it is clear that though OP 2 received the mobile set for repair, has not done so, which made the complainant to purchase a new mobile set for Rs.8,999/- as per Ex.P.3.  In view of this, not repairing the mobile set well in time amounts to deficiency in service.  Further no response has been filed by OP2, who has received the mobile set for repair.  Under the circumstances, we have to hold that there is deficiency in service and OP2 is liable to refund the cost of the said mobile set along with interest at 12% p.a., from the said amount along with Rs.2,000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. Hence we answer point No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and pass the following;  

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. Complaint against OP1 is dismissed.
3. OP2 is directed to pay the cost of the mobile i.e., Rs.10,500/- along with interest at 12% p.a., on the said amount from 22.07.2019 till payment of the entire amount.
4. OP2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
5. OP2 is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 24^th day of September 2020)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Cash bill for Rs.10,500/- for having purchased the mobile by OP

Ex P2: Copy of the medical records to show that I had to purchase another mobile for Rs.8,999/- due to emergency

Ex. P3: Copy of the tax invoice of the second mobile

Ex P4: Acknowledgement given by OP for having received the mobile for service

Ex P5: Copy of the complaint given to the grievances centre

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

•  NIL   -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

•  NIL   -

MEMBER                               PRESIDENT