DATE OF FILING: 21.03.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.74/2011
Between
Complainant : Bijumon.N.P,
Nadukkudiyil House,
Mullaringadu P.O,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
Atlas Mobiles & Times,
Near Gandhi Square,
Pala Road,
Thodupuzha P.O,
Idukki District.
2. The Manager,
Doctor Fone Services,
(Sony Ericsson Authorised Service Centre)
Ist Floor, Nellikkathadathil Building,
Opp. Thodupuzha Village Office,
Muvattupuzha Road,
Thodupuzha P.O,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant purchased a cell phone manufactured by Sony Ericsson company from the Ist opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.6,950/- on 15.01.2010. The opposite party offered a warranty of one year at the time of purchase of the phone and issued a warranty card to the complainant. After 3 months of the purchase of the said phone it became defective due to non-functioning of battery. The phone became switched off while talking and so it was not able to use and the matter was informed to the opposite party. On 16.12.2010 the phone became completely dead and so the complainant approached the opposite party' shop on 17.12.2010. As per the direction of the Ist opposite party, it was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party for repair. They assured that it will be returned within 2 days. But the opposite party never returned the phone after repair till now. Several times the complainant approached the opposite parties for getting the same. So the complainant requested for getting a new phone or the cost of the phone from the opposite party, but they have denied the same. The complainant is a Mason and cell phone is very necessary for his job. So he purchased another cell phone on 27.12.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.1,500/-. The cell phone purchased by the opposite party is a low quality one and it became defective several times during the warranty period. So the complaint is filed fore getting replacement of the cell phone or the amount paid by him and also for compensation.
2. The opposite party is exparte.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant. Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant.
5. The POINT : - As per the complainant, he purchased a Sony Ericsson NAITE J105 I cell phone from the Ist opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.6,900/- on 15.01.2010. The original bill issued by the Ist opposite party for the same is produced and marked as Ext.P1. At the time of purchase of the cell phone, the opposite party issued a warranty card and offered a warranty of one year for the same. The warranty certificate is marked as Ext.P2. But after 3 months of the purchase, the phone became defective, the battery was not charging properly. The phone became switched off while talking and the matter was reported to the opposite party several times. It became completely dead on 16.12.2010 and so the complainant entrusted the same to the 2nd opposite party on 17.12.2010 as per the direction of the Ist opposite party. They assured that it will be repaired within 2 days. Ext.P3 is the receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party at the time of entrusting the cell phone to the 2nd opposite party. While the complainant approached the opposite parties' shop for getting back the same the opposite party told that the company has stopped manufacturing of the said cell phone and the parts are not available for the same. So the complainant requested for getting another cell phone or the amount he paid, but it was denied by the opposite party. These matters were not challenged by the opposite party anywhere. We think that it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party that they have made a long delay for repairing the cell phone, which was entrusted to the opposite party for repair. The battery of the cell phone was became defective after 3 days and it is absolutely defective on 16.12.2010. The opposite parties themselves told the complainant that the parts of the same is not available because the company had stopped the manufacturing of the same. We find deficiency in the act of the Ist opposite party that they denied the repair of the phone. So the opposite party should replace the cell phone with a fresh one or pay the amount to the complainant.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the cell phone made up by Sony Ericsson purchased by the complainant with a brand new one or pay Rs.6,900/- to the complainant within 30 days. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
Nil
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Bill dated 15.10.2010 issued by the Ist opposite party
Ext.P2 - Warranty Certificate issued by the Ist opposite party
Ext.P3 - Receipt dated 17.12.2010 issued by the 2nd opposite party
at the time of entrusting the cell phone for repair
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
