BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint Case No  :  739 of 2010

Date of Institution :  15.11.2010

Date of  Decision   :  07.01.2011

Suhel Malik son of M.A. Malik, #3003B, Sector 52-D, Chandigarh (U.T.).

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     Standard Teletronics, Show Room No. 1049, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

2]   RT Chandigarh, InTarvo Technologies Limited, SCO No. 2473-74, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                         ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI       PRESIDING MEMBER

          DR.[MRS]MADANJIT KAUR SHOTA     MEMBER

PRESENT: Complainant in person.

         OP No.1 already exparte.

           Sh.Vipin Chander, Auth.Repr. of OP No.2

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, the Complainant purchased one SONY ERICSSON mobile handset (Model G900) from OP No.1 vide Bill No. 20057, dated 07.11.09, for an amount of Rs.11,800/-. It was alleged that the said mobile handset turned out to be defective right from the very beginning, giving troubles to the Complainant on one account or the other, due to which he had experienced great loss of time, financial loss and mental harassment to get it set right time and again from the OPs. The OPs made futile efforts to rectify the defects and in the process the Complainant had been made a shuttle cock between OP No.1 and the service centre. It was alleged that the mobile handset has not been repaired by the OPs to the satisfaction of the Complainant and also that the handset continues to remain with them.  When nothing positive could come out, the Complainant finally, requested the OPs to replace the mobile handset with a new one, but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been filed, alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of OP No.1, therefore, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte on 20.12.2010.

3]      OP No.2, in its written statement/ reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that there was no deficiency on the part of answering OP, as whenever the Complainant reported any problem in the mobile handset in question, the same was duly attended to and was rectified to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. In support of their contention, OP No.2 has annexed job cards Annexures R/1 to R/4 respectively. It was further submitted that it had also upgraded the software of the mobile and despite repeated requests, the Complainant failed to take delivery of the same with malafide intention to pressurize the OP No. 2 to succumb to his illegal demands. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OP No.2 (OP No.1 being ex-parte). We also heard the arguments put forth by the Complainant in person and Authorized Agent of OP No.2. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having purchased mobile handset of Sony Ericsson (Model G900) from OP No.1 on 07.11.2009 for Rs.11,800/- and that the mobile handset later on, developed certain defects, for which it was sent to OP No.2 i.e. the Service Centre of the OPs, have all been admitted. The Complainant, in support of his case, has enclosed the Invoice bearing No. 20057, dated 07.11.2009, representing the sale of the mobile handset by OP No. 1 to him. In addition, the warranty card, as well as two job cards have also been annexed by the Complainant to support his case. The job cards are dated 7.9.2010 and 11.10.2010, respectively, in which the problems faced by the Complainant have been listed as under:-

“Other On/Off problem, Other Display problem, Other Phone Hang, Freeze Problem.

Display Blank and Hand and ON OFF.”

“Blue tooth Problem

BLUTHOO PROBLEM.:     

    The Complainant further says that the handset was given to OP No. 2 for repairs and rectification of the defects pointed out by him, but the handset continues to remain with OP No. 2 and the same has not been returned to him after due repairs. It is quite clear that the handset was purchased on 07.11.2009 and the problem arose in September, 2010 i.e. within the warranty period of one year from the date of purchase. It is also a fact that the mobile handset has not been repaired by the OPs to the satisfaction of the Complainant and also that the handset continues to remain with OPs. As such, the Complainant has been deprived from using the handset even after spending a tidy sum of Rs.11,800/-, even for a period of one year i.e. within the warranty period.

ii] Although both the OPs were duly served, but OP No. 1 was not present and as such, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 20.12.2010. OP No. 1 had also not filed any written statement/reply or affidavit or any other evidence in support of its case, as it remained absent throughout the proceedings.  

iii] OP No.2, which is the Service Centre of the OPs filed its reply stating that the mobile handset did develop some problems for the first time in April, 2010, showing display crack and camera not working and accordingly, a job sheet was prepared and issued. It was found that the display of the said mobile handset was physically damaged, which as per warranty terms & conditions, could not be repaired free of cost under warranty and the Complainant was informed accordingly. After getting his consent, the defect was rectified on cost basis. Subsequently, another problem arose in the mobile handset, listed as “Hanging and Volume Problems” and job sheet dated 17.8.2010 was prepared and the same was rectified by replacing on/off key and upgrading the software to the full satisfaction of the Complainant on 20.8.2010. The Complainant again approached the Service Centre on 7.9.2010 i.e. within the next two weeks’ time with the problem of “Display, Hanging and On-Off”. Another job sheet dated 7.9.2010 was prepared and accordingly, the motherboard of the said mobile handset was changed and the handset was delivered to the Complainant on 8.10.2010. Subsequently, on 11.10.2010 i.e. within the next 03 days time, the mobile handset reported another problem of “Blue tooth” and as per this OP, it upgraded the software of the said mobile handset and intimated the Complainant to take delivery of the same, but the Complainant had failed to take delivery of the hand set. On these grounds, OP No. 2 has pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on its part and the complaint be dismissed with costs.     

iv] As per the facts and figures of the case, and after analyzing the same in details, it is quite clear that the Complainant had purchased a brand new mobile hand set on 7.11.2009 by spending a handsome sum of Rs.11,800/- from OP No.1. Soon thereafter, as admitted by OP No. 2, it developed certain serious defects on 5.4.2010 i.e. within a period of five months from the date of purchase. Thereafter, the handset has been continuously shuttling between the Complainant and OP No. 2 a number of times. On one occasion, OP No.2 even charged the cost of repairs in respect of faulty display, which according to it was physically damaged and that being so was outside the warranty terms & conditions of the company. The Complainant had paid the entire cost for the repair, but even subsequently, the handset has been regularly going to the Service Centre i.e. OP No. 2 a number of times and every time, there is a new defect in the handset. Finally, the Complainant was so much fed up with the recurring defects in the handset that he wanted the OPs to replace the defective handset with a brand new handset and also pay compensation for mental harassment and financial loss.   

v]  In the present case, as already stated, OP No. 1, who is the Dealer and who had sold the handset in question to the Complainant, has remained absent through out the proceedings and as such, it was proceeded against ex-parte. So far as OP No. 2 is concerned, it is only a Service Centre and it has been rendering service to the Complainant as and when asked for, sometime with cost and another time  without cost, as per company rules. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No. 2 and even, the Complainant has not alleged any serious deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2. Even otherwise, the Service Center is not responsible for any manufacturing defect in the product. In view of this, the complaint qua OP No. 2 is dismissed. However, OP No.2 shall return the old handset as already repaired by it to the Complainant forthwith.      

vi] Unfortunately, the Complainant has not made the manufacturer of the handset as a party in this case and at the same time, he has alleged serious manufacturing defects in the handset. But, as already well established, the handset in question has surely some manufacturing defect and the Dealer i.e. OP No.1, who has sold the handset to the Complainant, is as much responsible as the Manufacturer of the handset for any defects and especially manufacturing defect in the handset, which arise particularly during the warranty period. It is also proved beyond an iota of doubt that the Complainant, who happens to be a student, has not only suffered financially and lost lot of valuable time to go to the Service Centre again & again, but also that he has been deprived from using the handset for personal use for a long time, for which he had paid a princely sum of Rs.11,800/- to the OPs.  

6]      In view of the above, in our opinion, the present complaint has a lot of merit, weight and substance and it must succeed. We, therefore, allow the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OP No.1 & pass the following order.

7]      The OP No.1 shall do the following in favour of the Complainant:-

(i)    To replace the defective handset with a brand new handset with the same model and configuration, along with all accessories with fresh warranty of one year against any defect especially manufacturing defect. The Complainant after retrieving the defective handset from OP No.2, shall return the same to OP No.1.

(ii)    To pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant, on account of supply of a defective and sub-standard quality mobile handset to him even after charging the full cost for the new and fully functional mobile handset.

(iii)    To pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as litigation costs.

8]      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP No.1, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP No.1 shall pay the sum of Rs.5,000/-, along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile handset i.e. 07.11.2009, till realization, besides paying the costs of litigation as Rs.2,500/- to the Complainant and replacing the old and defective handset with a brand new handset, along with accessories and also furnishing a fresh warranty of one year. 

9]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07.01.2011

                    Sd/-                                                

                                (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(DR.[MRS]MADANJIT KAUR SHOTA)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’