THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 56/2015

Dated this the 20^th day of December 2018.

                     (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.    Hon’ble      :  President)                                 

                       Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB                  : Member

ORDER

Present: Smt.Rose Jose, Hon’ble President:

            This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the Mobile Phone manufactured by the 1^st opposite party or to refund its purchase price and to pay compensation for the delay in resolving his grievance and also cost of the proceedings.

            The petitioner is a Constable in Railway Protection Force, Kozhikode.  As a part of his job he has to use walkie Talkie during his duty hours. 

            His case is that, he had purchased a Sony X peria M series duel SIM Mobile phone from Samvad phones, Stadium Complex, Kozhikode on 04.04.2014.  But whenever he open the phone the walkie talkies get interrupted producing heavy noise.  Net work of the entire departmental walkie talkie system is getting interrupted.  This problem is not there when using other phones including the same model of sony’s M series mobile.  So on 02.10.2014 he approached the 2^nd opposite party, the authorized service Centre of the 1^st opposite party and made a complaint in this regard and brought it to the notice of them by a demonstration.  Again on 13.10.2014 he went to the 2^nd opposite party and they replaced its volume key and informed him that, they have already forwarded his complaint to the 1^st opposite party on 06.10.2014 itself.  But even after a lapse of 3 months, the 1^st opposite party didn’t take any action to rectify the defect or had given a reply.  So he lodged complaints at their toll free No.1800-3000-2800 on 24.11.2014 and 08.12.2014 in this regard, but there was no action or reply from the 1^st opposite party so far.  On 18.12.2014 he had sent a written complaint to the 1^st opposite party by post and also at their e-mail address but no use.  Due to the said defect of the phone he could not use his phone and this affected his duties adversely.  More over the negligent and indifferent attitude of the opposite parties in resolving this problem caused much inconveniences, mental pain and also financial loss to him.  The said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and so they are liable to compensate him for his sufferings.  Hence this petition seeking reliefs.

            The 1^st opposite party filed a joint version admitting that the 2^nd opposite party is their authorized service center.  It is also admitted that, the petitioner had purchased a Sony Xperia MDS mobile phone bearing model No.C2004 on 04.04.2014.  It is contented that, the petitioner had approached the 2^nd opposite party for the 1^st time on 13.10.2014 with the issue of ‘Volume Key missing’.  It was replaced by the 2^nd opposite party.  Again he approached the 2^nd opposite party on 24.11.2014 with complaint of “Ear speaker Jarring and noise while using walkie Talkie(Motorola)”.  On inspection by their service engineers the handset was found ‘liquid lodged’ and this fact was duly demonstrated to the petitioner also.  He was also informed by their service engineers that, if any noise is getting in the walkie Talkie then he has to ‘fine tune’  the walkie Talkie.  It is stated that there after the petitioner informed them that there is no issue in the handset.

            It is further stated that, since the handset being liquid lodged, it was out of warranty coverage and so the service personnel of the 2^nd opposite party gave an estimate for the repair of the handset but the petitioner has not approved the estimate given by them and instead collected the handset without repair on 10.12.2014.  Thereafter the petitioner never approached them raising any issues whatsoever and the set is still being enjoyed by the petitioner without any defect as alleged and now this petition is filed only to harass them  and with the intend to earn wrongful gain at their cost.  They have duly attended the complaints of the petitioner without any lapse.  There is no manufacturing defect with the phone and they have not adopted any unfair trade practice or there is any deficiency in service on their part as alleged.  The petitioner is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the petition and hence prayed to dismiss this petition on accepting their version.

            Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, Exts. A1 to A4, C1 and deposition of PW1, the petitioner.

            According to the petitioner, as a part of his job he has to use walkie Talkie.  But whenever he open the said mobile phone, the entire walkie Talkie system is getting interrupted producing heavy noise and so he could not use the said phone.  There is no such problem while using other phones or even mobile of the same model of the Sony Company.  According to the opposite parties they have replaced the volume key on 13.10.2014 and since the fault was due to liquid entry which is not covered under clause 3 of warranty terms they can repair the set only on payment basis but it was not accepted by the petitioner.  So there is no deficiency in service on their side.  But the petitioner denied the said contention of the opposite parties. The petitioner was examined as PW1, He deposed in lieu of his petition.

            In order to find out the exact state of the mobile the Asst. engineer, electronics section PWD Kozhikode was appointed as an expert commission to inspect and report the state of the disputed mobile phone.  He inspected the said handset on 20.10.2017 and submitted report on 29.10.2017 and was marked as Ext.C1.  In Ext.C1 it is reported that, “presently the phone is producing disturbances in other wireless equipment’s.  The model is not compatible in dealing with other wireless equipment’s interferences. “ The complaint reported by Mr.Mujeeb Rahman CC is found correct”.  So Ext.C1 report proved the allegations of the petitioner as true and correct.  The expert has not reported any other defects with the handset or any mention of liquid entry as contended by the opposite parties.  So the opposite parties cannot demand any charges from the petitioner for correcting the defects of the handset.  None of the parties had filed objection to the CR also.

            As a Constable working in RPF, the petitioner could not avoid use of walkie Talkie.  If the mobile is causing disturbances to the departmental wireless system while using this phone definitely it will be a problem not to the petitioner alone but to the department also.  Expert report shows that, this particular handset is having some defects which was not identified by the opposite parties also.  Anyhow considering the nature of the petitioner’s job, no doubt mobile is very much essential and this handset is not useful for him also.  Since the expert has not reported any liquid entry, the opposite parties ought to  have rectified the defect at the earliest at free of cost  on getting  complaint or has to replace the set with a defect free new one, without causing trouble to the petitioner.  But they were not ready for that. The indifferent attitude of the opposite parties in this regard is in our opinion deficiency in service on their part.  In the commission report the expert has specifically reported that ”The model is not compatible in dealing with other wireless equipments interference”  Even after filing this petition the opposite parties have not prepared to take the matter seriously and to rectify the same.

            In the result, the following order is passed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to refund the invoice price Rs.12,847/-(excluding VAT) along with Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the whole amount will carry 9% interest from the date of default till payment.  Opposite party can take back the defective mobile on compliance of this order.

Dated this 20^th day of December 2018.

Date of filing: 31.01.2015.

SD/-MEMBER                                                                                 SD/-PRESIDENT

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1.Copy of complaint addressed to Sony India Pvt.Ltd dtd.18.12.
A2. Copy of purchase bill dtd04.04.2014.

A3. Copy of retail invoice for Job No.W114101302818 dtd.13.10.2014.

A4. Copy of cash receipt bill No.604 dtd.01.11.14.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Mujeeb Rahman (complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None

                                                                                                                        Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT