COMPLAINT FILED:16.06.2011
DISPOSED ON:29.12.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
29th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011
PRESENT :-
SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1088/2011
Complainant | V.Srinivas, “Venkatadri”, No.33, 4th Main Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003. Inperson. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | SONY ERICCISON MOBILE COMMUNICATION(INDIA) PVT.LTD., 4th Floor, Dakha House, 18/17, WEA KAROLBAGH, NEW DELHI-110 005. Adv:Sri.Shashi R.Shah. |
O R D E R
Sri.B.S.REDDY,PRESIDENT
The complainant in person filed this complaint seeking direction against the OP to refund an amount paid for purchase of the mobile or for replacement on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2.OP though appeared through its counsel, but in spite of sufficient opportunity given not filed the version.
3.The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence,
4. Arguments from complainant’s side heard, OP side taken as heard.
5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that the complainant purchased Sony Ericsson Mobile Phone Model W 1001, on 11.05.2011 by paying an amount of Rs.4,285/- from Planet M Retail Ltd, the Dealer of OP as per cash Memo No.17233. OP is the Manufacturer of the said Mobile within 2 weeks of purchase the mobile was not working hence the same was taken to the service centre and they found it defective and asked the complainant to contact the Customer Care at Delhi. The complainant contacted the Customer Care but they were not co-operative. The document issued by communication service dt.20.03.2011 reveals the mobile was checked by the said service centre and they found upper key pad not working and the mobile was brought within a warranty period. The complainant has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.800/- hence he has sought for refund of total amount of Rs.5,085/-. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced. The very fact of OP having not filed version leads to draw inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant. The defective mobile sold to the complainant is nothing but unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid with expenses totally amounting to Rs.5,085/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,085/- and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 29th day of December 2011.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
