CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 270/2011
Sh. Lalit K Tiwari
B-7/65, First Floor,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029 ……Complainant
Versus
1. Soveena Mobile Zone
S-8/1, Green Park Main Market
New Delhi-110016
2. In Tarvo Technologies Ltd.
4,5,6 Chandra Bhawan
Building No.6768,
Near ICICI Bank, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019
3. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India
Building No.9A, 10th Floor,
DLF Cyber City, Sector-25A,
Gurgaon-122002, Haryana ……Opposite Parties
te of Institution : 25.07.2011 Date of Order : 07.04.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
In short, the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased a Sony Ericsson Mobile Phone, SI No.359419038176946, Model No. Xperia X-10i manufactured by OP No.3 from OP No.1 vide cash memo No.26812 dated 12.09.2010 for a sum of Rs.27,200/-. The battery of the mobile phone from the very first day was getting too hot during charging and also after 15 minutes to half an hour of continuous talk and also the mobile phone was giving very less battery backup. The matter was immediately reported to OP No.1 who advised him that being a new set the problem will slowly go away but in the second week of November, 2010 when the problem did not resolve he again contacted OP No.1 who gave him the service helpline of OP No.3. He narrated the problem to the helpline executive who advised him to contact OP No.2. Accordingly, he took the mobile handset to OP No.2. The OP No.2 returned back the mobile after replacing the battery and told him that the problem was with the battery and now he will not face any problem. So, the work order was taken back by the OP No.2 but unfortunately the same problem again occurred. In the month of December, 2010 once again the OP No.2 replaced the battery and this time they replaced the battery without any work order. When after replacement of battery twice the problem was not solved then he called up OP No.2. They advised him they will replace the battery once again. The OP No.2 did not agree that the handset was having a manufacturing defect. He complained on the website of Core Centre under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. On 28.02.11 when he was in the conference hall, the mobile phone got too hot. He noticed that lower portion of the screen of the phone just behind the battery compartment, got minor hairline crack developed on its own. The matter was immediately reported to OP No.3 as he was scared that the handset may explode. Ms. Shrishti attended his call and advised him to send the email. He sent an email narrating the details of the crack and surrendered the phone to OP No.2 vide work order No.SE3111NP10522 dated 28.02.11. The OP No.2 informed him that his phone will be repaired out of warranty but the mobile phone was well within the warranty against defect. It is submitted that five months have already been passed but the OP No.2 has neither repaired the mobile phone nor has given any concrete date as to when it will return his mobile phone duly repaired. On 16.04.11 he filed a complaint with Core Centre requesting them to mediate. They tried their best for two months but on 02.06.11 they also got fed up and finally suggested him in writing to go to the Consumer Court for redressal of his grievances. It is prayed that OPs be directed to give a new handset to the complainant with one year warrant or in alternative to refund the cost of the handset i.e. Rs.27,200/- plus interest till date and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
OPs have been proceeded exparte vide order dated 03.05.2012 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and also written arguments.
We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
OPs have the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but OPs did not choose to contest it.
The complainant has filed a receipt dated 12.09.10 whereby the OP No.1 had issued a receipt for Rs.27,200/- against the delivery of the mobile phone (copy annexure-A). The complainant has filed a Job Sheet dated 28.02.11 (copy Annexure 2 B) wherein it is mentioned that the display is broken, the handset is with battery only. The complainant has filed a letter dated 22.06.11 received from the Core Centre, Consumer Online Resource and Empowerment Centre (copy Annexure-3) whereby they advised the complainant to file the case before the consumer court for the redressal of his grievance.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.
It is evident from the record that the complainant had purchased a mobile from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 and the same is lying with OP No.2. The OPs neither repaired the mobile set nor returned the same to the complainant. Therefore, we hold the OP No.2 & 3 guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. We allow the complaint and direct the OP No.2 & 3 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.27,200/-alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization and Rs.5,000/- for harassment and mental agony undergone by the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OP No.2 & 3 jointly and severally shall become liable to pay the said amount of Rs.27,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 07.04.17.
