DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  30^th day of September   2015

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                 Date of filing: 21/04/2014

                                                      (C.C.No.60/2014)         

Ravi Shankar.G

S/o.Gopalakrishnan,

Anasuya, Maruvappadam,

Kannadi, Palakkad – 678 701                          -        Complainant

(By Adv.Redson Scaria)

Vs

1.The Manager

    The Mobile Store Ltd.,

    11/1157(3), NMR Complex, TB Road,

    Palakkad

   (By Adv.S.M.Unnikrishnan)

2.The Manager,

    ATech Service,

    Sony Authorised Service Centre,

    7/906(1), Shekaripuram Junction,

   Ayyapuram,   Palakkad – 678 003                           -        Opposite parties

   (By Adv.Abdul Khaleel & Abu Thahir)

3.Branch Manager,

   Sony India Pvt.Ltd. 2^nd Floor, Muscat Towers,

   Sahodaran Ayyappan Road,

   Kadavanthara, Kochi.

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

Complainant submitted that on 18/4/2013 complainant has purchased a mobile phone named Sony Xperia Micro (ST 23i)  from 1^st  opposite party for an amount of Rs.12445/-.1^st  opposite party is the dealer of the mobile nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of 3^rd opposite  party. 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of Sony Mobiles which was later impleaded  as per order in IA.312/14. At the time of purchase, 1^st opposite party had orally convinced the complainant that the phone will be replaced with a new one if anything happens to the phone except from the fault of the complainant. Immediately after the purchase i.e., on 1^st week of June 2013 the phone showed the defect of internet connection. As per the advice of 1^st opposite party  on 10-6-2013 complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party to rectify  the defects of mobile. On  24-6-2013 2^nd opposite party after curing the defects returned the mobile to the complainant. After 2-3 days, again these defects are shown and complainant approached 2^nd opposite party .After two weeks  they repaired mobile and returned the same to the complainant.  On 4-11-2013 complainant again approached 2^nd opposite party to cure the same defect. At that time they admitted that the fault is with the motherboard of the mobile. After 2-3 weeks 2^nd opposite party replaced the motherboard of the mobile phone. Complainant also submitted that the most of time phone was left with the 2^nd opposite party than it was with the complainant. 2^nd opposite party could not rectify the defects of the mobile  even after the repeated repairs.  Fed up with the complaint in the phone complainant left phone with the 2nd opposite party. Complainant  requested opposite parties for the replacement of new phone. But opposite parties neither replaced the mobile set nor refund the cost of the mobile. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant further submitted that by the act of opposite parties complainant has sustained huge financial loss and mental agony. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,020/- towards the cost of mobile phone along with interest , Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and other sufferings caused to the complainant and Rs.10000/- as cost of proceedings.

Complaint was admitted and was issued notice to all opposite parties. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed vakalath. Notice to 3^rd opposite party was not served. Hence complainant  submitted that no relief was sought against 3^rd opposite party.

1^st opposite party did not file version.

2^nd opposite party filed version admitting the defects of mobile and stated that the complainant approached them at 5 times to rectify the defects of the mobile i.e.,on 30-4-13,14-5-13,10-6-13,4-11-13 and 20-12-13. They also admitted that they recommended with  the company for the replacement of the new one and also given address of Branch office in Kerala region to complainant. They further contended that  instead of approaching the manufacturer, complainant unnecessarily implead them as a party to the complaint. Opposite party also contended that the complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary party. Manufacturer has to be impleaded. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party. 

Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A2 series marked. MO1 also marked.2^nd opposite party did not file affidavit.  

Issues are to be considered

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?

Issues 1 & 2

    We have perused the documents produced by the complainant. 2^nd opposite party has no dispute with regard to the purchase of mobile. Moreover the 2^nd opposite party admitted in their version that the mobile has some defects and complainant approached them to cure the defects at 5 times.  As per Ext A1 warranty card the warranty period is started from 18-4-03. Ext.A2 series job cards issued by 2nd opposite party shows that the mobile phone had some defects and these defects are occurred within a short span of time of purchase of mobile phone that is well within the warranty period. 2^nd opposite party also stated in their version that they advised the complainant to approach the manufacturer to get new mobile.  Since 2^nd opposite party admitted that they are the authorized service centre of Sony mobiles, he has the duty to solve the problem of the Sony customers. They can easily approach manufacturer to redress the grievances of the customers. They did not do so.

1^st opposite party is the dealer of Sony mobiles. Ext A1 proved this fact. Complainant submitted that on believing the version of 1^st opposite party he has purchased the mobile. 1^st opposite party by selling the defective products has committed unfair trade practice. Dealer has the same responsibility as that of manufacturer. Privity of contract is between the complainant and dealer.  Several times complainant approached opposite parties to replace mobile or refund cost of the same. But they did not do so. No contradictory evidence is adduced by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. From the above circumstances we are of the view that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the financial loss and mental agony sustained. In order to fix quantum of compensation complainant did not produce the purchase bill of the mobile or any other documents to show that he has sustained financial loss due to the acts of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. However the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for mental agony sustained and cost of proceedings of the complaint.  As per the submission of complainant, complaint against 3^rd opposite party is dismissed.

In the result complaint is partly allowed. 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five  thousand only) as compensation for mental agony suffered and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of proceedings.

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of  September  2015.

                                                                                            Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                          Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1   - Warranty Certificate

Ext.A2 series (4 Nos)  – Service job sheets and invoice issued by opposite parties

MO1 – Mobile Phone Sony make

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost 

Rs.2,000/-allowed as cost of the proceedings.