SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed by the complainant  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the OP’s to replace brand new one mobile phone in the same model or to pay the value of the mobile phone along  with compensation and cost to the complainant  for   the deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.

  The brief of the complaint :

   The  complainant had purchased a  Sony “Xperia 22 white “ model mobile phone from 1^st OP on 8/12/2015 for an amount of Rs.28,000/-.  The complainant had purchased this mobile only on  believing the advertisement and assurance of water proof, replacement guarantee of the OP’s.  The mobile phone had one year replacement warranty also.  But the phone became damage within 2 weeks after purchase the battery  heaten and phone switched off.  Immediately on 28/10/2015 the complainant approached 1^st OP for replacing the  mobile phone.  But  the 1^st OP refused to replace the mobile phone  and he send the complainant to the authorized service centre for repairing the mobile phone.  On 18/10/2015 itself the complainant handed over the phone to 2^nd OP for repair.  But after 15 days the 2^nd OP had not cured the defect of the mobile phone.  Then the complainant again approached to  2^nd OP then he stated that the mobile phone had some serious software issues and taken more time to repair the set.  At last on 4/12/2015 the 2^nd OP handed over the phone to complainant and  he assured  that all defects cured.  But again the use of the mobile phone the phone became damaged and touch screen and camera is not working.  Then the complainant again approached to 2^nd OP and stated that he is the authorized service  centre and they are bound to repair the defective mobile  phone during the warranty period on free of cost.  So the OP’s are either to  repair  the set at  free of cost or replace another set.  But the OP’s failed to do so.  The act of OP’s the complainant caused much mental agony  and financial loss .  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.   Hence the complaint.

       After  filing this  complaint  notice issued to all OP’s .  All Ops entered before the commission and  filed their written version. The Ops admitted that the complainant approached 2^nd OP on 28/10/2015 with an issue of ” no power in the said mobile phone”.  The technician discovered that there was burnt mark in the charging port of the said mobile phone and replaced the PCB with free of cost.  The mobile phone was collected with full satisfaction on 4/12/2015.  Moreover the manufacturing defect  in the product is alleged by the complainant by way of cogent credible and adequate evidence supported by an opinion of expert.  So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of  OP’s.  The OP’s are  not liable to replace the mobile  or refund the price of the product. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

      On the basis  of the rival contentions by the pleadings the  following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and  Exts. A1 to A4 and Ext.C1 were marked . On OP’s side no oral or documentary evidence produced.

Issue No.1: 

                The  Complainant  adduced evidence  before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  The documents Exts.A1 to A4 and Ext.C1 marked on  his part to substantiate his case. In Ext.A1 is the tax invoice shows that the complainant had paid Rs.28,000/- to 1^st OP on 8/10/2015 and he received the mobile phone.  In Ext.A2 is the  warranty card issued  by 3^rd OP to complainant and assured one year warranty for the phone also.  In Ext.A3 is the service job sheet dtd.28/10/2015 and the customer complaint noted as “no power” and ASC comments “scratches”.  In Ext.A4 is the Sony authorized service centre retail invoice dtd.4/12/2015 the customer complaint noted as “no power” and comments noted as replaced.  The same defects are repeatedly happened.  Now the complainant  have no  use for the above said phone.  Then the  complainant filed a petition  before the commission  to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the mobile phone.  Then one Mr.Sujin M.P is appointed as the expert commissioner and he inspected the mobile phone  filed the report before the commission and marked as Ext.C1.  As per the  report the commissioner reported that at the time of charging the mobile phone contain heating, touch not work properly, water resistance capacity is not proper, battery backup. So the OP’s bound either to repair the phone at free of cost or replace the same.  But the OP’s are not ready to replace or repair the mobile phone with in the warranty period.  There is deficiency of service on their part.  Since the OP’s are not support to repair the  mobile phone under customer warranty conditions.  On OP’s side except the version no other documents or evidence to prove their defense.  So we are of the considered view that the OP’s are either to  replace  the mobile set under warranty or refund the value of product. Since they failed to do so.  We hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of  OP’s.  Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly

Issue No.2&3:

  As discussed above the OP’s are not ready to replace a new mobile phone to the complainant.   The complainant produced the Ext.A1 document which clearly shows that the complainant had paid Rs.28,000/- to 1^st OP.  According to the complainant  failure to provide a new mobile phone, the OP’s are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that the OP’s are jointly and severally liable to pay  the value of mobile  phone  Rs.28,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.8,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost.  Thus the issue Nos. 2&3 are also accordingly answered.

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay  the value of mobile  phone for Rs.28,000/- to complainant along with Rs.8,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost  within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of  Rs.28,000/- carries 9% interest  per annum  from the date of order till realization.   Failing which the  complainant is at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After the said proceedings the opposite parties  are at liberty to take back the mobile phone from the custody of the complainant.

Exts:

A1-tax invoice dtd.8/10/2015

A2-warranty card

A3-Service job sheet

A4- Retail invoice dtd.4/12/2015

C1- Expert  report

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                   Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR