Complaint filed on: 20-07-2010 <br /> Disposed on: 22-09-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.1652/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 22nd SEPTEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> Kum.Sushma.G. D/o Sri.H.M.Ganesh,<br /> Aged about 26 years, <br /> Residing at No.33/31,<br /> 1st Main, 3rd Cross, <br /> Balajinagar, DRC post,<br /> Bangalore-29<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite party: - <br /> <br /> 1. Sony Ericsson, <br /> Customer service centre, <br /> No.652, 11th Main, <br /> Jayanagar, 4th block, <br /> Bangalore-560011<br /> Represented by its manager, <br /> <br /> 2. Ascentel, <br /> Mobile Telephony on a platter,<br /> No.102/B, West minister <br /> Building No.13, <br /> Cunningham Road, <br /> Bangalore-560 052<br /> Represented by its Manager <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K., Member<br /> <br /> Grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties in brief is that, she purchased a sony ericsson Mobile hand set from the 2nd OP on 2-8-2009 for a sum of Rs.5,199/-. 2nd Op had issued receipt for the same bearing no.SII-GUNN/610. After two months from the date of purchase of handset, complainant was getting problem of software in the handset. Complainant gave the said mobile to customer service centre who is 1st Op in this complainant for repair. Op 1 took 15 days time to repair it and assured that the mobile will function properly in future without any problem. Though it has been repaired, again the complainant found same problem in the handset in the month of November, 2009. The hand set has given again for the repair to the 1st Op and the same has been returned after 20 days. In the month of January 2010 complainant again found improper functioning of the mobile, and Op1 verified the same and told that there is problem in IC and hard ware problem and for that Op 1 charged Rs.750/- to the IC and the hardware though it was within the warranty period. In the month of March, 2010 complainant’s mobile got hanging problem. After approaching Op1 he charged Rs.150/- for consultation .Then also it was within the warranty period. After so many repairs and for that complainant paid to OP in April 2010 complainant’s datas deleted which were stored in the mobile. Complainant submitted that Op1 had taken a receipt and no documents are left with complainant. Ops are failed to fulfill their obligations eventhough Complainant informed about the problem she was facing with mobile and she is fed up with the defective mobile and seeking relief from this forum that direction to Ops to replace the mobile or alternative relief to refund the paid amount and compensation of Rs.25,000/- and other relief of Rs.61,099 in total.<br /> <br /> 2. Notices sent to Op’s were duly served on Op’s and they were absent on the date of appearance. Hence, both OP 1 and 2 were placed exparte.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed her affidavit evidence reproducing what she has stated in her complaint. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of invoice, and a copy of a legal notice he got issued to the Ops regarding refund of her amount and acknowledgements regarding service of legal notice. We have heard the counsel for complainant and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. Complainant had purchased a mobile hand set with 2nd Op who is service provider. 2nd Op had issued receipt and within short span from the date of purchase complainant faced problem of software in the said hand set and the same has been gave it to the customer service centre who is 1st Op for repair which was attended. The same has been handed over to complainant after 15 days after repair. Though it has been repaired by 1st Op complainant again got the same problem within short span, 1st Op attended it. But the third time, complainant approached 1st Op, he came to know that there is defect in the IC and hardware in the hand set which is necessary to replace by paying cost and Op charged Rs.750/- for the first time and Rs.150/- on second time though it was within the warranty period, but complainant has not produced any document to prove the payment of Rs.750/- and Rs.150/-<br /> <br /> 5. When complainant often gave it for repair with the same problem to 1st Op, service centre personnel never told about the defective IC and hardware causing the problem. The same service centre had repaired twice within the warranty period but 1st op told regarding replacement of IC and hardware problem in later stage. If it was the reason for often disfunctioning of the mobile, Op supposed to attend the problem without charging for that. It indicates that there is truth in the complainant’s contention that Op had suppressed the facts and canvasses the same after several repairs and also frequent problem indicates that there is manufacture defect in the mobile. The same has been brought to the notice of both the Op’s through legal notice issued by the complainant dated 8/4/2010, neither Op’s came forward to replace the mobile nor reply to the notice. It indicates the negligence of Op towards the customers.<br /> <br /> 6. The complainant gave it thrice for repair but Op collected Rs.750/- and Rs.150/- from the complainant within warranty period. If anything defect found in the product within warranty period, Op must have attend the problem without charging for that. When the same problem occurred again and again within short span we are of view that 1st has not recognized the problem at the early instance and not repaired it properly, so that problem occurred again and again. Complainant counsel submitted that since complainant already purchased another mobile complainant’s claim to refund the amount what he paid for the said hand set is justifiable<br /> <br /> 7. The Ops appears have not responded to notice therefore the grievance of the complainant that the mobile hand set is not working, despite repair since has not been denied by the OP’s can not be disbelieved. Therefore we find deficiency in the service of OP’s and therefore are liable to answer to the short coming caused by them. Complainant as stated above has proved the defect in the manufacturing of the mobile hand set, he is entitled for refund of money. We find that, the complaint is to be allowed, accordingly and we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> Ops are jointly and severally directed to refund cost of mobile Rs.5,199/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Complainant shall hand over the hand set to the 2nd OP after receipt of the amount.<br /> <br /> Ops are further directed to pay Rs.1,500/- towards damages for mental agony and inconvenience within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> <br /> On the Ops failing to pay the above amounts within the stipulated period they shall pay interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> Ops shall also pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 22nd September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />