Complainant present in person
Opponents absent
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(24/06/2013)
This complaint is filed by the consumer, against the dealer and manufacturer of the mobile handset for defects in the goods and for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a resident of Baner Road, Pune - 21. He is a student. The opponent no. 1 is a manufacturing company and the opponent no. 2 is the service center of the said company. The complainant has purchased mobile handset of Sony Xperia U model on 30/06/2012. There was defect in the said handset and the touch screen working of the said handset was stopped in the first week of November. He approached the opponent and requested for rectifying the defects. He was called by the Service Center from time to time on 19/11/2012, 20/11/2012, 21/11/2012, 22/11/2012, but the handset was not repaired as per the warranty. Thereafter he was informed that the handset was not within the warranty period. Again he approached company and the service center on 23/11/2012 and 26/11/2012. But the representative and the technician of the opponent did not satisfy him by rectifying the defects. He had issued legal notice to the opponent no. 2 on 30/11/2012 and sent e-mail to the opponent no. 1 on 19/12/2012. As the opponents have not replaced the handset or removed the defects, he has asked compensation for deficiency in service to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. He has claimed compensation for mental agony to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- and for physical suffering and damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. He has claimed in all an amount of Rs. 55,000/-.
2] The opponents though duly served remained absent. Hence complaint proceeded ex-parte against them.
3] The complainant has produced copy of the receipt of the mobile handset, copies of the notices, which were served upon the opponents and e-mails. The allegations made in the complaint are supported by the affidavit. These are not rebutted by the opponents. It reveals from the same that the opponent neither repaired the handset nor returned the same to the complainant. Hence complainant is entitled to receive cost of the mobile handset. It reveals from the receipt, which is filed along with the list Annexure I that the price of the mobile handset is Rs. 15,201/-. It reveals from the record that the complainant has visited to the offices of the opponent from time to time, but there was no response from the opposite side. In the modern era, use of mobile became indispensable. The opponents have neither replaced the handset nor repaired the same. The complainant must have sustained torture. Hence he is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 5000/- as a compensation for deficiency in service as well as for mental agony and physical suffering. He is further entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1000/- by way of cost of the litigation. As the opponents have failed to contest the matter, the complaint is decided on merit on the basis of documents, which are produced on behalf of the complainant. I held that the complainant has proved that there were defects in the mobile handset and there was deficiency in service on the part of opponent no. 1 and 2. In the result, I pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponents
have caused deficiency in service by not
repairing the handset as well as not
returning the same to the complainant.
3. The Opponents are directed to pay total
amount of Rs. 21,201/- (Rs. Twenty One
Thousand Two Hundred and One only) to
the Complainant within six weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order by the
opponent.
4. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
