ORDER DELIVERED BY Shri. R.G. PATIL, PRESIDENT
1)This is a complaint praying to award special compensation towards loss of Rs.50,000-00, the price of new handset of Rs. 6500-00, the cost of old handset of Rs. 3,225-00, the expenses and costs of the complaint of Rs. 3,000-00 from the OPs.
2)Brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant on 17-6-2008 purchased a Sony Ericson T 250 I mobile handset from the OPs for Rs.3225-00 with warranty. On 5-11-08 it stopped functioning. The same day he took it to the OPs who kept it with them for repairs and issued bill No 580.The complainant contacted the OPs 3-4 times but the OPs did not return the set. Annoyed with such tendency of the OPs and necessitated, under unavoidable circumstances the complainant purchased another handset. On 5-12-08 he issued a notice to the OPs. Neither they replied the notice nor returned the set. There is deficiency of service by the OPs and they are liable.
3) The OP-1 filed objections stating that he is mis-joinder to the complaint and does not know any fact of the complaint. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4)The OP-3 filed WS admitting that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset on 17-06-08, and further stating that as per warranty, and terms and conditions the Mobile Company is the necessary party. This OP is not responsible for any defects in the handset. Though this OP got repaired the handset from the Company service center and informed many times by phone and through the concerned shop keeper the complainant purposely did not turn up to take back the set till date. After receipt of notice the OP informed the complainant through phone that the set was repaired. The set is in good condition. There arises no question of deficiency of service by the OP-s and the OPs are not liable. She prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5)The complainant has filed his affidavit as CW-1 and affidavit of one Manoj as CW-2 and got marked Ex.C-1 to C-5. The affidavits of OP-1 as RW-1, OP-3 as RW-2 and affidavit one Gautam Hegde as RW-3 are filed.
6)The point that arises for our consideration is “Whether there is deficiency of service by the OP ?”
7)The counsel for the complainant averred that the mobile set is purchased from the OPs shop, as they are the dealer. The set has warranty of one year. The set went out of order within warranty period. The set was handed over to the OPs. They kept it for repairs but did not return even after many requests and notice. They avoided replying the notice. Under unavoidable circumstances the complainant being necessitated had to purchase another set. The OPs are responsible as there is deficiency of service.
8)The counsel for the OPs contended that as per warranty, and terms and conditions the Mobile Company is the necessary party. The Company is not made party to the complaint. This OP is not responsible for any defects in the handset. Though this OP got repaired the handset from the Company service center and informed many times by phone and through the concerned shop keeper the complainant purposely did not turn up to take back the set till date. After receipt of notice the OP informed the complainant through phone that the set was repaired. The set is in good condition. There is no is deficiency of service by the OPs and they are not liable.
9)We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents. It is the contention of the complainant that he handed over the defective mobile handset to the OPs for repairs and he OPs did not return the set even after many requests and issue of notice. The CW-2 has stated that on 3-12-08 he accompanied the CW-1 to the OPs shop and the OP behaved irresponsibly. The OPs in their WS have admitted the defect in the set and receipt of the notice. There is no record produced by the OPs to show that they have responded to the notice. The RW-2 in her affidavit has sworn to the fact that the handset was repaired and was many times sent to the complainant through RW-3 but the complainant denied to take the set. RW-3 in his affidavit has stated that after repairs he many times took the set to the complainant but he did not take it. The OPs have not explained when they have repaired the set, what were the defects and the reason for delay in repairing the set. It is the responsibility of the dealer to abide by the conditions mentioned in the warranty and to provide immediate relief to the customer. The OPs san such of service motto. It is the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and they are liable. Further it is open to the complainant to implead any party to the complaint. The OPs can not take plea that the complaint is bad for not impleading the Mobile Company party to the complaint.
10) The complainant has claimed the refund of purchase price along with some other reliefs, as he purchased another mobile handset. Under the circumstances if we allow the complaint directing the OPs to refund the purchase price of the handset of Rs.3,225-00 it will be justifiable.
We pass the following Order.
The complaint is allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the purchase price of the handset of Rs 3,225-00 (Rs.Three thousand two hundred and twenty five only) to the complainant.