Complainant present in person
Opponent No. 1 through Lrd. Adv. Ruchir Kulkarni
Opponent No. 2 absent
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(09/05/2014)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against the manufacturing company and service provider for deficiency in service as well as defects in the product under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a resident of Wireless Colony, Aundh, Pune-7. The opponent no. 1 is the manufacturing company and the opponent no. 2 is the service provider. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased mobile phone from the opponent no. 2 on 28/5/2012 for an amount of Rs. 29,650/-. Within the couple of months from the date of purchase of the mobile, severe software problems were developed in the mobile and it used to get hanged frequently. There were serious inherent manufacturing defects with its touch screen. The complainant approached to the opponent no. 2 on 23/8/2012 and requested them either to repair the mobile or to replace the same. The mobile was kept in the custody of the opponent no. 2, but it was not repaired. After 15 days, the complainant approached to the opponent no. 2, but the opponent no.2 did not hand over the handset to the complainant. Hence the complainant had lodged several complaints to Sony Customer Care Service. The opponent no. 1 and 2 had shown inaction towards the complaints of the complainant. Hence, he had issued legal notice through Advocate. But that notice was not replied by the opponent no. 2. According to the opponent no. 1, there was no negligence on their part. Thus, the complainant has neither received handset nor refund of the price of the mobile. Hence, he has filed this complaint against the mobile company and its dealer. He has claimed price of the mobile Rs. 29,650/-, compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, legal expenses of Rs. 10,000/- and miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant has claimed interest @ 18% p.a.
2] The opponent no. 2 though duly served remained absent. Complainant has filed affidavit as regards service of notice of the opponent no. 2.
3] The opponent no. 1 has resisted the complaint by filing written version through Advocate. It has denied the contents of the complaint in toto. It is the case of the opponent no. 1 that, it has taken all possible steps to resolve problem of the complainant and had offered to repair the mobile phone but he has filed the complaint only with the intention to harass the opponent. According to the opponent no.1, some parts of the mobile were beyond repairs; hence those parts could not be cured. Those problems occurred due to mishandling of the handset. The complainant has made illegal demand of refund of the price of the handset. It is further contended that the opponent had attended the complaint properly. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable. It has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has established that the mobile supplied by the opponents was defective and there was deficiency in service on their part? | In the affirmative. |
2. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS :-
5] In order to substantiate the claim, the complainant has filed affidavit as well as documentary evidence, such as job card, bill of the mobile and office copy of the legal notice. It is not in much dispute that the opponent no. 2 is the authorized dealer and the opponent no.1 is the manufacturer of the mobile. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the mobile from the opponents and the problems were occurred in the mobile within three months from the date of purchase of the mobile. The opponents have failed to produce any record to show that they have made efforts for the repairing of the handset. The opponents have not replied to the notice issued by the complainant. In these circumstances, it is the considered opinion of this Forum that the handset provided by the opponent was defective one and both the opponents have caused deficiency in service. It is not denied by the opponents that the mobile is in their custody. It is admitted by the opponents that there was one year warranty given by them for the said mobile. Hence, it is crystal clear that the opponents have not fulfilled the terms and conditions of warranty and that amount to deficiency in service. It reveals from the bill, which was produced by the complainant that the cost of the mobile is Rs. 29, 650/-, the complainant is entitled to receive that much amount. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on the ground of mental and physical harassment as
well as cost of the proceeding. In the result this Forum answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
* O R D E R **
1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opponent No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 29,650/- (Rs. Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only), to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3. The opponent No. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only), as a compensation on the ground of mental and physical harassment and cost of the proceeding to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. On failure to pay the abovementioned
amount within six weeks, it shall carry
interest @ of 9% p.a. from the date of
filing of the complaint till its realization.
5. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
6. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within one month from the date of order, otherwise those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 09/05/2014
