01.            The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Sony Xparia E4 handset bearing IMEI No.358138067789905 for Rs.12, 202/- from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.20171/1272206 dt.02.05.2015 and the handset within 4-5 days of its purchase could not be started once it is switched off.  The handset was delivered to OP.2 who is the Authorised Service Centre (ASC) of the Company with customer complaint and ASC comments “Blank Display and Auto Off” on 11.5.2015.  The complainant requested the OP.2 to recommend for replacement of this set with a new one but the OP.2 repaired the set on the same day and issued job sheet.  It is submitted that on 13.5.2015 the same problem again noticed and the fact was intimated to Service Head of the Company through email to replace the defective set but the OP.2 instructed the complainant to contact Sony ASC (OP.4), Jeypore for repair.  The OP.4 repaired the set on the same day of approach but again the same problem arose on 20.5.2015 for which another email was sent to Service Head of Sony Company but the Service Head is still insisting to visit service centre for repair.  The complainant submitted that he being a medical practitioner is unable to run after the Ops for repair every now and then and for the above inaction of the Ops he suffered mental and physical harassment.  Thus alleging defective goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.12, 202/- towards cost of the handset and to pay Rs.15, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1, 2 & 3 filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of Sony handset to the complainant on 02.05.2015.  The Ops also admitted that on 11.5.15 the complainant approached OP.2 with complaints and the OP.2 as per requirement up dated the software and the complainant collected the set in working condition.  Again the Ops admitted that on 17.6.15 the complainant approached the ASC with complaint “Phone hang/Freeze”.  As the handset had no problem, after updating software, the set was handed over to the complainant in working condition.  As per the Ops, the complainant did not abide the instructions outlined in the user guide due to which the set got damaged.  The Ops further stated that they offered a fresh handset in exchange of existing handset but the complainant did not agree and demand for refund of its cost which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the warranty.  With these and other contentions denying any fault on their part, they prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     OP No.4 did not participate in the proceeding in spite of valid notice.  The complainant has filed certain documents and the Ops filed affidavit in support of their cases.  Heard from the complainant as well as the A/R for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case it is an admitted fact that the alleged handset has been sold by the OP.1 to the complainant on 02.05.2015, the manufacturer of which is OP No.3.  The complainant alleges that after 4 to 5 days of its purchase the handset could not be started once it is switched off for which the handset was delivered to the ASC (OP.2) to rectify the defects.  Perused the job sheet dt.11.5.15 of OP.2 which clearly stated that the set suffers “Blank Display and Auto off” problem.  According to the complainant, he demanded a new set but the ASC repaired the set and delivered to the complainant on the same day in working condition.  The Ops in their counter stated that the handset starts but shows only black/white screen when it was received on 11.5.15.  The Ops further stated that the ASC found no problem in the handset but it required software up date which was done and the handset was collected by the complainant in working condition.

5.                    This time on 11.5.15, the Ops never spoke about misuse of the handset by the complainant. Hence it was ascertained that the set failed to operate under normal use, may be due to defects in the materials or workmanship.  The ASC of the OP took this defect casually but due to set defect the complainant failed to use the handset just after 5 days of purchase.

6.                     As the same problem returned, the complainant has requested the Ops on 13.5.15 to replace the set with a new one but the Ops did not listen and advised to contact OP.4 for repair.  The complainant as per advice of the Ops went to OP.4 who rectified the defect but did not issue any job sheet.  Again on 17.6.15 the complainant approached OP.4 for the same problem but the OP.4 could not bring the set in perfect working condition.

7.                     The complainant has filed copy of job sheet and email letters in support of his case.  The Ops in their counter admitted about the repeated repairs of the handset through their ASCs but unfortunately they have not admitted about the defects in the handset.  Their contention is that due to software problem, the handset becomes hang and freeze and it shows blank screen.   These types of defect in our opinion are certainly the inherent defects of the set.  It is also seen that after repeated repairs, the handset of the complainant is now in the same condition and lying unused.

8.                     In this case the complainant is a medical practitioner.  In spite of his busy schedule, he has approached the ASCs of Ops and sent email requests for replacement of the set but all his efforts went in vain.  If a customer for the defects in the handset runs after the Ops every now and then, it would be a herculean task for him.  Nowhere the Ops proved that the complainant has misused the set.  When the Ops after repeated attempts could not bring the set into order, it can be easily concluded that the handset bears some inherent manufacturing defect and the poor customer should not suffer for the defective handset sold to him by the Ops.

9.                     In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the OP.3 from the date of purchase of the handset.  Further due to defective handset, the complainant has approached the Ops for more than 3 times and has sent email requests for exchange of the set but the Ops have utterly failed to satisfy the complainant.  Due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant being a doctor in profession must have suffered some mental agony for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3, the manufacturer being liable is directed to refund Rs.12, 202/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 02.05.2015 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)