Complaint filed on: 26-02-2010 <br /> Disposed on: 30-07-2010<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.421/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 30th JULY 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> Sri.B.R.Sohan Kumar, <br /> Aged about 40 years, <br /> S/o. late B.H.Ramachandra, <br /> No.34, 11th Cross,<br /> Swimming pool Extension, <br /> Sudeendra Nagar,<br /> Malleshwaram, Bangalore-03 <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> <br /> Opposite party: - <br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Sony Ericsson Mobile<br /> Communications AB <br /> 11/1 & 12/1, Maruthi Infotech<br /> Centre, Koramangala Inner<br /> Ring Road, Amarjyothi Layout,<br /> Domlur, Banalore-71 <br /> Represented by its Authorised <br /> Signatory <br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Mamta Telecom, <br /> No.48, SN Bazaar, <br /> III Main Road, Gandhinagar, <br /> Bangalore-09<br /> Represented by its proprietor <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K., Member<br /> <br /> Grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties in brief is that, he purchased a sony ericsson Mobile hand set from the 2nd OP on 24-9-2008 for a sum of Rs.13,269/-. 2nd Op had issued receipt for the same bearing no.15861. After 45 days from the date of purchase of handset, complainant was not getting problem of network/signal in the handset. Complainant gave the said mobile to authorized service centre of 1st Op for repair on 12/11/2008in vide delivery challan no: 1722. Though it has been repaired, again the complainant found same network/signal problem in the handset. The hand set has given again for the repair to the authorized service centre of 1st Op in vide delivery challan no: 5688. Though it has been repaired twice, it was not working properly. On 20/10/2009 with the same complaint, complainant approached and authorized service centre of 1st OP informed that the mother board has got damaged it need to be replaced. Complainant alleged that thrice it has been given for repair authorized service centre of 1st Op suppressed the fact regarding defect in mother board which is required to be replaced till the expiry of guarantee period. Several times complainant requested to replace the set but Op’s did not do so and even complainant had issued legal notices to Op’s calling upon to refund Rs.13,269/-. But Op did not bother to reply to his notice or refund his money. Therefore attributing deficiency in service against the Ops and direction to stop unfair trade practice has prayed for a direction to the Ops to refund his money Rs.13,269/- interest @ 24% p.a from 24/9/2008 and for inconvenience and to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also to pay costs. <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 his affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his respective complaint. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of invoice, 3 delivery challans issued by service centre of 1st OP and a copy of a legal notice he got issued to the Ops regarding refund of his amount. 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 45 days from the date of purchase complainant faced problem of network on the said hand set and the same has been gave it to the authorized service centre of 1st Op for repair which was attended. The same has been handed over to complainant after repair. Though it has been repaired by service centre of 1st Op complainant again got the same problem within short span, 1st Op attended it. But the third time , complainant approached service centre of 1st Op , he came to know that there is defect in the mother board of the hand set which is necessary to replace by paying cost , the reason is lapse of guarantee period.<br /> <br /> 5. When complainant often gave it for repair with the same problem to service centre of 1st Op, service centre personnel never told about the defective mother board causing the problem. The same service centre had repaired twice within the warranty period but 1st op told regarding replacement of mother board when the guarantee period expired. It indicates that there is truth in the complainant’s contention that Op had suppressed the facts and canvasses the same after one year guarantee expired 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, neither Op’s came forward to replace the mother board nor reply to the notice. It indicates the negligence of Op towards the customers.<br /> <br /> 6. The complainant gave it twice for repair within warranty period and 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. 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. Since the 1st Op issued delivery challans dated 12/11/2008, 3/4/2009 and 20/10/2009 to the complainant which exhibits the problem of network and mother board is identified and complainant as stated above has proved the defect in the manufacturing of the mobile hand set, he is entitled for refund of entire money as he could not use the set. We find that, the complaint is to be allowed, accordingly and we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed against the 1st and 2nd OP jointly and severally. <br /> <br /> Op’s are directed to refund cost of mobile Rs.13,269/- to complainant within 15days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the mobile set is with the complainant shall hand over it to the 2nd OP after receipt of the amount. Op’s are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for hardship and mental agony. Failing which Op’s shall pay interest @ 12% on the above amounts from the date of this order till the realization, with cost of Rs.1000/-. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 30th July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />