Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/27/2011

Narendra Nanda kumar V R - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (I) pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

IP

01 Mar 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/27/2011
 
1. Narendra Nanda kumar V R
#14/14,Karekallu,Gadimuddanna lane,Near Ashwini stores,Kamakshipalya,Blore-560079
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

Date of Filing: 04.01.2011
Date of Order: 01.03.2011
 
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
 
Dated: 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2011
 
PRESENT
 
 
 
Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.
Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.
 
COMPLAINT NO: 27 OF 2011
 
Narendra Nanda Kumar V.R.
No. 14/14, Karekallu, Gadimuddanna Lane
Near Ashwini Stores, Kamakshipalya
Bangalore 560 079                                                              Complainant
V/S­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
 
1.     Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
(India) Pvt. Ltd.
4th Floor, Dakha House, 18/17
WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005
 
2.     UniverCell Telecommunications
India Pvt. Ltd.
No. 1 & 2, 3rd Main Road
Near Nataraj Theater
Seshadripuram, Bangalore 560 020                         Opposite Parties
 
ORDER
By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale
 
This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that he has purchased Sony Ericsson mobile handset for Rs. 15,288/- on 11.06.2010 from opposite party No. 2. The hand set started giving problem. He had written mail to the opposite party. Handset was given for service centre. Technician rectified it as battery connector problem. This problem arose 3 times till September 2010. Complainant called and enquired in the showroom for the replacement of handset on 25.09.2010. The phone was dead. He took to service centre. It was rectified. Again on 28.09.2010 handset was dead. He took to the service centre they changed the mother board. 5 days time was taken to get handset back. Handset was giving problems like switching it on or switching it off, poor battery performance, display illumination problem, memory strict problem. Handset was sent to Chennai. Mother Board was changed for 2nd time. Again handset started giving problem. In December handset was given to service centre. They said battery problem is there. It is still in service centre. Complainant has not received the call from the service centre. Complainant has sent mails to Sony Ericsson and he did not get any satisfactory replies. Because of such problem complainant misses so many important calls from the office and clients. He had to purchase new mobile. Therefore, complainant prayed that he may be given refund of Rs. 15,228/- with compensation for the problems faced by him.
2.                 The complainant has produced tax invoice. As per this document he has purchased the Sony Ericsson mobile handset on 11.06.2010 for Rs. 15,288/- from opposite party No. 2. Complainant has produced several job cards of service centre of Sony Ericsson. The complainant has produced e-mail correspondence. It is very unfortunate that the mobile hand set purchased by complainant was not working properly and it started giving trouble and problems. Complainant given the mobile set to service centre for repair several times and again he faced the problem. The opposite parties should have replaced the mobile set immediately by noticing the defect in the set. The opposite parties are not given proper response to the e-mail correspondence. This kind of trend on the part of service providers is not proper. A customer / consumer is most important visitor in the business premises. He is not dependent on the business establishment/service provider. On the other hand they are dependent on the consumer. In this case the case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The complainant has made out a very good case of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties have not appeared and contested the matter. It appears that they have no defence to make that is why they have not chosen to appear and contest the matter. The case of the complainant shall have to be accepted. The complainant suffered lot of inconvenience and he had spent lot of his time and energy. Therefore, he is definitely entitled for refund of the amount of Rs. 15,288/-. In the result I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
3.                 The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 15,288/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order the above amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till payment / realisation.
4.                 The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to send the amount of Rs. 15,288/- to the complainant directly by way of D.D. / cheque with intimation to this forum.
5.                 The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from opposite parties.
6.                 Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 
7.                 Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2011.
Order accordingly,
 
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings.
 
MEMBER         MEMBER
 
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.