BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of December 2013
Filed on : 17/05/2013
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No. 358/2013
Between
Rameshkumr M.R., : Complainant
Melamthuruthil, Kumbidi, (party-in-person)
Poovathussery P.O., Mala,
Thrissur-680 741.
Vs
1.Sony India Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
A-31 Mohan Co-Operative (1st O.P. by Adv. George Cherian
Industrial Estate, Karippaparambil, HB 48,
Mathura Road, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-682 036)
New Delhi-110 044.
2. Accel Frontline Services Ltd.,
Sony Authorized
Service Centre,22/2207,
Opp. Veekshanam Press,
Veekshanam Road,
Cochin-682 018.
3. Ginger Mobiles,
Vyaparabhavan, Building,
N. Paravoor.
O R D E R
V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
The facts of the case leading to this complaint are as follows:
The complainant purchased a Sony Mobile Phone valued Rs. 17,000/- on 18-05-2012 as is evidenced by bill No. 26727. The complainant made his 1st complaint on 19-10-2012 that the hand set showed Hanging, WiFi and other internet related problems. The 2nd opposite party, the authorized service centre of 1st opposite party repaired the handset by loading the software. The above repair was done after the lapse of four months after purchase that too within one year warranty period. Again on 14-11-2012 the handset was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party service centre for the very same complaints like Hanging, Heating, Not able to make or receive calls. The 2nd opposite party rectified the defects by replacing PCB, by upgrading soft ware etc. The handset was returned after repair on 03-12-2012. Again within two months i.e. on 07-02-2013 the handset became faulty and the same was entrusted with 2nd opposite party for repair and the handset was returned to the complainant after changing PCB and servicing only on 28-02-2013. On 26-04-2013 the handset became faulty and the handset was returned on 18-05-2013 after the warranty period over. Thus the hand set was repaired several times during the warranty period for the very same complaints. The complainant filed this complaint before this forum seeking replacement of the hand set or refund of the cost of the handset, Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered, Rs. 1,500/- towards expenses incurred for purchasing a new mobile phone, Rs. 2,500/- towards costs of proceedings.
2. The 1st opposite party in its version stated that the hand set purchased by the complainant was duly repaired as and when complaints were registered, by upgrading the software, by replacing the PCB, therefore there was no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party, that the request of the complainant to replace the handset is prejudicial to the interest of 1st opposite party in view of the decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. B C Thakur desai and Anr II (1993) CPJ 22J (NC). It is also contended that the 1st opposite party had on all occasions repaired the handset to the satisfaction of the complainant, that the terms of warranty do not provide for a replacement of the handset in case it is repairable and the request for replacement of handset is also not justified in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruthi Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another 2006 (4) SCC 64 wherein it was held that replacement beyond the warranty period is not justified. It is also contended that the complainant had not annexed any report of an independent expert as defined in section 2 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regard to any alleged defect in the hand set purchased by the complainant and in the absence of any expert opinion the complainant is not entitled to replacement of the handset especially in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala State Commission in Sabeena Cycle Emporium Vs. Thejus Rai MR. Pandia villa Vedar, Ezkhone P.O. (1992) 1 CPJ 97 and in view of the decision of Hon’ble West Bengal state commission in Kesab Ram Mahto Vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd (1 (2003) CPJ 244) and in view of the decision of Delhi State Commission in S.P Barthwal Vs. Maruthi Udyog Ltd. (1 (2003) CPJ 298. It is prayed that the demand of the complainant to replace or refund the cost of the handset and the claim towards compensation etc. may be dismissed with exemplary costs to the opposite party in view of the facts stated in the version filed.
3. The complainant produced documentary evidences marked as Ext. A1 to A6 and the opposite party adduced documentary evidences marked as Ext. B1 and B2 on their side. Both parties were heard.
4. The complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 18-05-2012 with one year warranty. During the warranty period itself the hand set was serviced several times by the authorized service centre. The defects registered during the warranty period are of similar nature like Hanging, Heating, W1F1, Not able to make or receive calls and the very same defects continued even after the warranty period. It is true that the complaints registered by the complainant were duly attended and servicing effected then and there. Even then the very same complaints registered during the warranty period persisted even after the warranty period. The above facts are distinguishable from the facts of the various decisions relied on by the opposite parties. Therefore the opposite parties can not take shelter under the reported cases before this Forum. This is a clear case where the complainant was not at all satisfied with the working of the hand set from the beginning i.e. from 19-10-2012 onwards. The continuation of the very same defects in the warranty period show that the handset sold to the complainant is suffering from inherent manufacturing defects and we feel that the complainant is entitled to replacement of the handset. After paying a huge amount of Rs. 17,000/- towards the cost of hand set, the complainant received uninterrupted enjoyment of the handset only for the first four months of purchase. Therefore we find that the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the old handset with a new one. The claim of the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused and for costs of proceedings is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,000/- each towards compensation for the mental agony and towards costs of proceedings. The prayer of the complainant to allow expenses incurred for purchasing a new phone is found not allowable since the said expense is indirect and remote.
5. In the result, we direct that the opposite parties shall replace the hand set of the complainant with a new one and the complainant shall return the old hand set to the opposite parties. We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant and to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of proceedings.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of December 2013.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose,Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of bill dt.18-05-2012
A2 : Copy of service job sheet
A3 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 28-05-2013
A4 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 03-12-2012
A5 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 19-10-2012
A6 : Copy of service job sheet
Dt. 07-02-2013
Opposite party’s exhibits:
Ext. B1 : Copy of e-Stamp
B2 : Copy of important Infor
