COMPLAINT FILED ON: 25.01.2011

DISPOSED ON: 15.07.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

15^th  JULY 2011

       PRESENT:- SRI.B.S.REDDY                      PRESIDENT           

                         SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA     MEMBER

                         SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                MEMBER

COMPLAINT No.141/2011

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA,  MEMBER

This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant, seeking direction to the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to refund Rs.8205/- being the value of the hand set along with interest at 18% p.a. & compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost on the allegations of deficiency in service.

          2.    The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows.

          On 14-8-2010 complainant purchased a Mobile hand set make Sony Ericsson W20i-ZYLo vide MEI No. 012383001142864 from O.P.3 who is a dealer of O.P.1 manufacturer. O.P.2 is a authorised Service center.  Complainant paid Rs.8,205/- to O.P.3 which is inclusive of tax. The copy of invoice dt:14-8-2010 is produced by  the complainant.  After few days the said handset developed some problems such as not displaying the callers ID and screen used to go blank with out any display.  Complainant approached O.P.3 on 30-8-2010 seeking rectification of the problem.  O.P.3 received the hand set from the complainant and handed over the same to O.P.2 for repair.  Complainant spent 15 days without mobile set for personal communication.  Complainant being a Doctor by profession had lot of contact numbers stored in the mobile. Complainant unable to communicate or receive any communication. On 16-9-2010 the mobile hand set delivered back to the complainant informing mother board is replaced with new IMEI No. 01238300088592-7.  O.P.3 promised that problem is rectified. Copy of the delivery challan issued by O.P.2 is produced. Within one day same defects re-accurred again complainant approached O.P.3 and narrated the defects which was repeated in the hand set.  The O.P.3 again received mobile hand set stating hand set will be upgraded with the software of O.P.1.  After 4 days O.P.3 handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant and informed that the set is functioning properly. Based upon the assurance given by O.P.3 complainant collected the mobile set for usage.  To the surprise of the complainant the mobile persisted with the same old problems. Complainant left with no other option sought for new hand set with O.P.3 dealer.  O.P.3 informed that there is a technical problem in the mother board of the hand set it  will be replaced again, if it is deposited with O.P.3.  Complainant had paid her hard earned money to purchase the mobile set, within a span of 15 days the mobile has failed to function as per the features given by the O.P.1. Further problems not rectified by the authorized service center.  Such being the case again repairing the mobile for the third occasion is not to the satisfaction of complainant. The hand set is well within the gurantee period O.Ps. failed to rectify the mobile handset and not provided proper service to the complainant and request of complainant for new hand set is not considered by O.Ps.   Hence complainant got issued the legal notice through her counsel on 19-11-2010 to all the O.Ps.  There was no response to the legal notice inspite of its service.  Hence complainant felt deficiency in service. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs.

3.      After registration of the complaint notice is issued to O.P.1 to 3. Inspite of service of notice O.P.1 and 3 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause, hence O.P. 1 & 3 are placed exparte.

4.       O.P.2 appeared in person filed his version admitting that complainant visited his service center on 30/8/2010  stating display was blank for which O.P.2 diagnosed and found  that there was a  mother board complaint.  O.P.2 informed the complainant that they need to replace the mother board which takes couple of weeks time. After complying the same O.P.2 delivered the hand set  to the complainant on 16-9-2010. Same was tested by complainant as per delivery challan dated 16-9-2010. As per complaint averments hand set worked for a day after words same problem persisted again. Hence complainant approached O.P.3 but not O.P.2.  After the hand set serviced for second time by O.P.3 complainant collected the same and found the same old problem recurring. Complainant did not approached O.P.2 after first service.  If the complainant would have been approached O.P.2, they would have been fulfilled the requirement as it was a repeated case.  O.P.2 prays to direct the complainant to approach O.P.2 so that they can take the necessary action for the service of  replacement.  Among  other ground O.P.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      In order to substantiate the complaint averments, complainant filed her affidavit evidence and produced copy of the invoice dated:14-8-2010, work order dated:30-8-2010, delivery challan dated:16-9-2010, issued by O.P.2 copy of legal notice and acknowledgement. O.P.2 inspite of giving sufficient opportunity,  failed to file his affidavit evidence. Complainant filed written arguments. Heard oral arguments from complainant and  taken as heard from O.P. side.

6.      In view of the above said facts, the points now that arises for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

      Point No.1:-  Whether the complainant

  proved the deficiency in service

   on the part of the OPs?

Point No.2:-   If so, whether the complainant is

                     entitled for the reliefs now claimed?

       Point No.3:-  To what Order?

7.      We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:

Point No.1:- In Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.

Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

8.      At the outset it is not in dispute that on 14/8/2010 the complainant purchased a mobile hand the make Sony Ericson  W20i-ZyLo- bearing IMEI No. 012383001142864 from O.P.3 who is a dealer of O.P.1, manufacturer.  O.P.2 is the authorized service center of O.P.1.  Complainant paid Rs.8,205/- to O.P.3  being the cost of said mobile hand set. Which is inclusive of tax.  To substantiate this fact  complainant  has produced the copy of the invoice dt:14-8-2010 issued by O.P.3. Within few days of its purchase the said hand set developed display problem and after often the screen used to go blank.  Complainant approached O.P.3 dealer to rectify the problem.  O.P.3 in turn handed over the hand set to O.P.2 who is a authorized service center for repair.  After 15 days O.P.2 delivered back the said mobile hand set to the complainant on 16-9-2010 by replacing the mother board with new IMEI No.01238300088592-7. The work order and delivery challans issued by O.P.2 substantiates the same. Though O.P.3 promised the complainant that the problem is rectified; to the surprise of the complainant within one day the said mobile hand set persisted with the same defects.  Again complainant approached O.P.3 and narrated the defects.  Which was repeated in the hand set.  After 4 days O.P.3 handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant with an assurance that the mobile hand set will function properly.  But the same problems were repeated for the second time.  Complainant left with no other option sought for replacement of new mobile set with O.P.3. But O.P.3 replied that there is a technical problem in the mother board of the mobile hand set it will be again replaced if it is hand over to O.P.3.  When O.Ps. failed to rectify the defects for the second time complainant got issued the legal notice to  all the O.Ps. on 19-11-2010.  Inspite of service of notice there was no response. Hence complainant approached this Forum for the necessary reliefs.

9.      The mobile hand set sold to the complainant is of  manufacturing defects. OPs are unable to repair it. Hence complainant unable to use the hand set.  Complainant is entitled for free service or replacement within the warranty period.  The complainant has approached OPs well within the warranty period.  The service given by the dealer or the service center is not of satisfactory.  Hence complainant sought for replacement.  O.P.3 informed that there is a technical problem in the mother board of the mobile, it will be replaced if it is deposited with them.  Already complainant has parted with mobile hand set for about 20 days. Complainant being doctor by profession must have under gone lot of inconvenience without having any contacts or communication.  Inspite of repeated requests and service of notice O.Ps.  failed to rectify the defects or  give replacement.  The mobile set sold to the complainant is a defective one. Refusal to replacement amounts to deficiency in service.  Both the dealer as well as the manufacturer are liable to the complainant.  From the absence of O.P.1 & 3 we can draw the inference that O.P.1 & 3 admits all the allegations made by the complainant in two. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the mobile set along with litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:    

O R D E R