COMPLAINT FILED ON:02.06.2011

DISPOSED ON:12.06.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

12^th DAY OF JUNE -2012

       PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY                      PRESIDENT                        

                          SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                             MEMBER

O R D E R

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant in person filed this complaint seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as OPs) to refund an amount of Rs.8,000/- the cost of the mobile with 24% interest and Rs.20,000/- compensation along with Rs.5,000/- traveling expenses on the allegation of deficiency in service.

2. The case of the complainants to be stated in brief is that:

The complainant purchased Sony Ericson-F305 Model Mobile on 09/06/2009 for Rs.8,000/- from OP3.   The performance of the mobile was not good, within 15 days the mobile stopped functioning properly.   Initially, the mobile was getting hanged frequently and was some problems with the camera, the complainant went to the Sony Ericson Service Centre and got acknowledgment slip which was taken back during the time of delivery.    Mobile was working correctly for a few days and again caused the same problem, then he went to the same service centre.   This time it was working correctly and rarely was getting hanged but he did not take it seriously.   After a few months the mobile got worse, again he went to same service centre to report the problem.   The service centre got repaired but after few days the problem repeated.   On April 17^th 2010 again the complainant went to the same service centre, when slide opens or closes handset gets blank display, and some camera problem, so this time the service centre changed a faulty 16 HW part with a new one, and 28-SW application was upgraded.    When the complainant got it back it was proper but was repeatedly hanging later.   Thereafter the complainants switched to another service centre in Saleh Centre, i.e., OP2 on 08.06.2010, for the same problem, they took around 30 days for repair, when he went to take the delivery, he noticed it was not ready and they took it again for repairing, he was asked to come after a few days, but even this time it was not ready, this time he did not get any new acknowledgement slip, the same one was extended, same process repeated for 2-3 times, then although the mobile was not working correctly, they convinced to take the mobile, saying that they had replaced few parts in it and installed a new software so surely it does not cause any problem, but it needs some time as it is a new software.   The complainant observed the mobile for almost a week but no use, no improvement was seen, then he went to the service centre and they assured that they will get it proper, but when he went to take the delivery just within 5 min after the delivery it started hanging, the complainant showed it to service centre, they took it again for repair.     Same thing repeated for 2 times and he was not getting new acknowledgement slip.   The complainant asked the service centre for a new mobile, they agreed for it and asked him to come after few days, they almost took 30 days but when he went to get a new cell, again they said that they have changed some parts, software in it and its almost a new one and refused to give the new cell.      The complainant did not agree to take it.    The complainant posted letters to the above mentioned three parties, on 25.09.2010, OP3 replied the letters stating that they are just the dealer not the manufacturer; they got the authority to sell the mobile and not to repair it, which is under warranty.    In the bill they have clearly mentioned that warranty will be provided by the respective manufacturer or service centre and they have given address of the authorized service centre at the time of purchase.   All the mobiles they sell have only guarantee not warranty i.e., only service warranty not replacement guarantee.    Hence the complainant was instructed to approach the authorize service centre.   The other two parties did not turn up.   Thus it is stated that the company has cheated the complainant he has to travel to service centre from Doddaballapur, he is an MBA student he has to skip his classes because of this cell.   He has spent lot of money for traveling.  Hence the complaint.

3. Ops 1 and 3 in spite of service of notice failed to appear, hence placed ex-parte.   

4.   OP2 on appearance filed version contending that the mobile purchased by the complainant was given for repairs on 08.06.2010 on last day of warranty period.   The mobile was given earlier for service to M/s Numeric Communication Services before giving the same to this OP.  OP carried out all the repairs pointed out by the complainant at that point of time the software of the mobile phone was upgraded and OP2 also replaced R.F.board in the mobile.   The delay in the repairs took place because of the reason that the mobile phone was sent to the head office of the 2^nd OP for repairs. At that time when complainant came to collect the mobile phone, OP informed him that the mobile phone is now in good working complainant can take delivery on 13.07.2010.    The mobile was once again given to this OP for repair which was taken in extended repair warranty, once again the 2^nd OP carried out all the necessary repairs and the mobile was ready for delivery.    The complainant came to the service centre of the OP, 2^nd OP informed that the mobile phone was ready to delivery and the complainant can collect the same from them.    The complainant has purchased the mobile after going through the specification given in the manual which was given to him at the time of purchase.   The plea of manufacturing defect can be entertained by this Hon’ble Forum only based on the opinion of an expert and only when it is proved by way of documentary evidence that the mobile phone suffers from any manufacturing defects.    The complainant has failed to make out any case for deficiency of service or manufacturing defects.   The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief’s.   Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence.   The Assistant Manager of OP2 filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.  

6.  OP2 filed Written Arguments, Arguments on both sides heard.

7.   The points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

           Point No.2:-If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?

           Point No.3:-To What order?

8.   We record our findings on the above points:

           Point No.1:-Affirmative

   Point No.2:-Affirmative in part

   Point No.3:-As per final order.

R E A S O N S

9. The undisputed facts are that on 09.06.2009 the complainant purchased Sony Ericson-F305 mobile from OP3 authorized Dealer by paying sum of Rs.8,000/-.   OP1 is the Manufacturer of the said mobile and OP2 is the Service Centre.    The complainant claims that the mobile which he had purchased was not in good condition, the performance of the same was not good as it was getting hanged frequently and it has some problems with the camera.   Therefore, he took that mobile to Numeric communication services on 17.04.2010, within the warranty period.   The problems reported as shown in the job card are that when slide H/S get blank display, some time H/F not recognize and one side N/W camera Problem.   The Service Engineer remarks are software upgrade, part replaced.   The mobile was delivered to the complainant on 20.04.2010.    After the repairs the mobile was working for few days correctly, again it has caused the problems.    The complainant had taken the mobile to the same service centre, the service centre attended the repairs but the problems repeated.  Lastly the complainant had given for the servicing of the mobile to the OP2 on 08.06.2010 even OP 2 took around 30 days for repair attend. The complainant noticed that the mobile was not working correctly.   OP2 stated that they have replaced few parts and installed new software, the mobile does not cause any problem.   The complainant after taking delivery the mobile from OP2 found that there was no any improvement again he had taken the mobile and given to the OP2 for the repairs.   Since he was not satisfied with the repair hence he demanded for replacement of the new mobile but OP2 stated that they have changed some parts software in the mobile and it is almost a new one but the complainant refused to take that mobile and he insisted for the new set.   Since Op2 was only a service centre it could not replace the new mobile hence that mobile remained with OP3.   OP3 has sent it to its Head Office.

            When the new set of mobile purchased by the complainant was not working properly and it was repaired by the service centre repeatedly, even then the performance of the mobile was not good.   These facts clearly goes to show that the mobile was having manufacturing defect as a result the complainant could not make use of the mobile.     OP1 being the manufacturer and OP3 being the Authorized Dealer are responsible to refund the amount received towards the cost of the mobile amounting to Rs.8,000/-.    The supply of manufacturing defective mobile by Ops 1 and 3 and selling the same to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.    The very fact of OP1 and 3 remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that they are admitting the claim of the complainant regarding the defective mobile being supplied.    There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced.    OP2 is only Service centre, the liability to refund the amount cannot be fixed on OP2.   OP2 did its best to attend the repairs of the mobile.   Under these circumstances, we are of the view that OP 1 & 3 are liable to refund the amount of Rs.8,000/- paid towards cost of the mobile.   The complainant has claimed Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment Rs.5,000/- towards traveling expenses, as he has to come from Doddaballapura every time when the mobile was given for service and he is an MBA student he has to skip his classes because of the defective mobile sold to him.   Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.2,000/- is to be awarded towards costs and compensation.    Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant allowed in part.  

Ops 1 & 3 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,000/- cost of mobile and pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

        The complaint against OP2 stands dismissed.

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order.

        Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 12^th DAY of JUNE-2012.)

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

Cs.