Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 28th August 2013
This complaint is filed by consumer against manufacturer and service provider of the mobile for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is resident of Matruchaya Co.Op.Hsg.Soc, Pune Nagar Road,Pune 411 006. Opponent No.1 is manufacturing company. Opponent No.2 is Mumbai Office and the Opponent No.3 is the dealer of the Opponent No.1. Complainant is the student and studying in engineering faculty. On 18/6/2008 she had purchased Sony Ericsson phone W910i for Rs.14,949/- from the dealer. She paid additional cost of Rs.550/- for the extended warranty. In all she paid Rs.15,499/-. After some months there was display problem and keys of the mobile were not working. Hence it was handed over to the Opponent No.3 on 10/7/2009. After carrying out repairs it was returned to the complainant on 22/9/2009. However the problems in the mobile were not solved. Hence complainant requested the dealer to inform this fact to the manufacturer. She had issued letter dated 18/01/2010 but did not receive any reply from the Opponents. On 14/7/2011 she had issued legal notice and also informed to the dealer about the defects in the phone. But these defects were not rectified. Hence she had filed present complaint for deficiency in service as well as for defect in goods. Complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile handset of the same price or refund of amount of Rs.15,499/- alongwith 18 % p.a .interest.
[2] The dealer has filed affidavit and denied the contents of the complaint. It is contended that it is merely a retailer. Warranty is given by the manufacturer and manufacturer is responsible for fulfilling the terms of warranty in case of any defect after the sale is effected. The dealer has prayed that it be absolved. It has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, affidavits which are filed by both parties and considering the argument and pleadings following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved that Opponents have caused deficiency in service ? | In the affirmative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is allowed. |
Reasons-
As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2-
Complainant has produced documents such as tax invoice, office copy of the legal notice, delivery challan, acknowledgement receipt which is received by the Opponents. The case of the complainant is that eventhough there were defects in the mobile those were not cured by the Opponents during the period of extended warranty. According to the dealer he is not responsible for the manufacturing defects hence he should be exonerated. But as the dealer is representing the manufacturing company he cannot be exonerated as he had sold out the said mobile to the complainant. It reveals from the documentary evidence that the complainant had paid Rs.15,499/- hence she is entitled for replacement of the mobile which is worth Rs.15,499/- or cash amount. She is also entitled for compensation for mental and physical sufferings and cost of the litigation. The evidence which is adduced by the complainant and the documents and affidavit is not rebutted by the opponents and complainant had established deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. Hence I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order –
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that Opponents have caused deficiency in service by not removing the defects in the mobile and by giving poor service.
3. The Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace the mobile which is purchased by the complainant or pay the price of the mobile alongwith extended warranty charges i.e. Rs.15,499/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. The Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and mental and physical sufferings within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
5. The Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
6. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place- Pune
Date – 28/08/2013
[S. M. Kumbhar] [V. P. Utpat]
Member President
