BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

      SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER

                                                                               SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER                                     

Wednesday, 25^th May 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  95/ 2015

M. Haricharan Teja, S/o M. Subramanyam,

aged 19 years, Hindu, D.No. 58/36, Sastrinagar,

Akkayapalli, R.V. Nagar Post, Kadapa, YSR District.                      ….. Complainant.  

Vs.    

1.  M/s Lot Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by it’s the Manager,

     Shop No. 9-10-15, D.No. 4/475, Nagarajupeta,

     Ayappaswamy Pillai Street, Kadapa.

2.  Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by it’s the

     Managing Director, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

     Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.                                    …..Respondents.

This complaint coming for final hearing on 23-5-2016 in the presence of Sri  G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and R1 appeared as in person and R2 called absent and set exparte on 9-3-2016 and  upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),

1.                The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Respondents to replace or refund the price of Sony mobile phone of                      Rs. 17,904/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its purchase till realization, to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical strain and                   Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 

2.                The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows.  2^nd Respondent is the manufacturer and marketing the mobile phones under the name and style of Sony and 1^st Respondent is authorized retailer of R2.  The Complainant purchased a Sony mobile manufactured by R2, model Xperia Z1 black bearing No. 359774051233440 for an amount of Rs. 17,904/- from R1 and R1 issued a credit bill bearing No. 37732817685.  As per terms and conditions the said mobile phone bears one year warranty from the date of its purchase.  But the said mobile phone purchased by the Complainant, developed with problems ever since from the date of its purchase.  The mobile phone was hanging and SIM signals are not supported and net connection was very low.  There was also a software problem, so the Complainant could not even able to operate the mobile phone.  On 30-9-2015 the mobile phone was completely stopped from working.   The Complainant approached R1 on 2-10-2015 and informed about not functioning of the mobile phone and handed over the same for the above said defects.   After verification R1 referred the Complainant to approach authorized service center of Sony Xperia at Tirupati as the authorized service center at Kadapa was recently closed.   On 3-10-2015 he approached the service center at Tirpati, but on seeing the mobile of the Complainant, the service center personnel refused to see the mobile by saying that they won’t accept Z1 series mobiles of Sony Xperia as they don’t have equipment to deal with the same.  They advised the Complainant to approach service center at Hyderabad.  On 4-10-2015 the Complainant approached R1 and informed the facts what happened in Tirpati service center and requested him to do justice and to replace the mobile with new one as the mobile sold by him, developed with manufacturing defects and there is no service center available to rectify the defects at Kadapa.  But R1 gave evasive reply saying that the problems in the mobile could not be rectified and advised him to approach the District consumer Forum against R2.  The Complainant was studying 3^rd year B.Tech. at SCSVMV College, Kanchi in Tamil Nadu and is very much needed mobile phone for communication and for information Technology. Due to defectiveness of mobile marketed by the Respondents he was forced to run around the office of R1 and service center at Tirupati  but his grievances were not redressed.  The Complainant was put to mental agony and physical strain since the mobile is having inherent defects.  The Respondents 1 & 2 are liable to replace or refund its price together with interest.  The Complainant issued a legal notice on 17-10-2015 calling upon the Respondents to replace the mobile or to refund its price and to pay compensation but they did not comply the same or given reply.  Hence, the complaint for the above  reliefs.

3.                Respondent No. 2, who is the manufacturer of the mobile phone purchased by the Complainant remained exparte on 9-3-2016.

4.                Respondent No. 1, who is the dealer of R2 filed counter admitting the purchase of Sony mobile Xperia Z1 by the Complainant from his shop on the even date under the bill, but denied other allegations.   Further contended that the R2 is manufacturer of the mobile and also provided warranty for the mobile phone purchased by the Complainant.  Hence, R2  alone is liable to replace the said mobile phone to the Complainant and since he is only a dealer, he has nothing to do with the defects in the manufacturing of the mobile phone.  He also contended that the defects in the mobile phone are not properly pleaded by the Complainant.  Therefore, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents as pleaded by the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against the Respondents as prayed?
3. To what relief?

6.                No oral evidence has been let in by the parties.  But  on behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A5 documents are marked.  No documents are filed by the contenting R1.        

7.                Heard arguments and perused the documentary evidence placed on record.    

8.                Point Nos. 1 & 2. The undisputed facts in this case are that the Complainant is 3^rd year B.Tech. student at SCSVMV College, Kanchi and he purchased a sony Xperia Z1 black mobile phone under Ex. A1 bill from R1 on 17-9-2015 for an amount of Rs. 17,904/-.  R1 is a dealer of Sony mobiles manufactured by R2.  According to Ex. A1 bill the mobile phone purchased by the Complainant has one year warranty from the date of its purchase. 

9.                According to the Complainant mobile phone purchased by him had developed with problems such as hanging and SIM singles are not supported and net connection was very low and there was also software problem and he could not even able to operate the mobile and on 30-9-2015 the mobile phone was completely stopped from working.  Then he approached R1 and informed the same about non functioning of the phone on 2-10-2015, however, the R1 replied that there is no service center at Kadapa and advised him to approach at Tirupati service center.  But the Complainant approached service center at Tirupati they refused to receive the model of complainant mobile stating that they are not able to deal with the defects of such model.  Then he returned and approached R1 to get his mobile checked and rectify the defects but R1 did not oblige the same and not rectified the defects and not rendered the services required to him.  All these facts have been stated by the Complainant in his affidavit filed along with the complaint. Though the R1 denied the Complainant approached him and brought to his notice about the defects in the mobile etc., but by filing Ex. A2 legal notice dt. 17-10-2015 issued to the Respondents 1 & 2 proved that the Complainant approached R1 and brought to the notice of R1 about non-functioning of the mobile purchased by him under Ex. A1 bill.  So the contention of R1 that the Complainant did not approach him after purchase of the mobile and he did not advise Complainant to approach the service center at Tirupati cannot be believed and he denied the same only with an after thought.   The Complainant also proved by filing Ex. A4 railway tickets dt.                      3-10-2015, that he travelled to Tirupati  from Kadapa on that day.  The postal receipt Ex. A3 also shows that he issued legal notice to Respondents 1 & 2 under Ex.A2 on               17-10-2015. Neither R1 nor R2 choose to give reply to the notice issued to them under Ex. A2.  Therefore, the Complainant proved that the mobile phone purchased by him under Ex. A1 bill on 17-9-2015 from R1 manufactured by R2 developed with problems such as hanging over, SIM signals was not supported and net connection is very low and there was software problem and so he could not operate the mobile and the mobile was stopped from working completely on 30-9-2015.  The Complainant even deposited the mobile purchased by him under Ex. A1 before this forum for verification by R1.  But the R1 neither checked it nor got it verified from any expert to show that it is being worked properly without any defects.  Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 failed to prove that the mobile phone sold to the Complainant under Ex. A1 is properly working and no defects within the warranty period.  Since the Complainant is B.Tech student he requires phone with advanced technology for his communication and information technology purpose.  So he purchased the mobile under Ex. A1 bill for an amount of            Rs. 17,904/-, since the mobile phone sold to Complainant was defective one the same has not been functioned and completely stopped working from 30-9-2015 onwards.  Since, R1 failed to render service either to replace or to refund the price or at least to get the mobile phone defects rectified and R2 is the manufacturer of such defective mobile phone sold to the Complainant,  We hold there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents  1 & 2.  Since the Respondents sold the defective mobile phone to the Complainant and he is entitled for refund of mobile phone price sold to him, apart from some amount for mental agony and costs.  Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the Complainant. 

10.              Point No. 3. In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the Respondents 1 & 2 to refund Rs. 17,904/- (Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred and four only) towards price of Sony mobile phone sold to the complainant and shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 12% p.a. till realization.  The Complainant shall receive the mobile phone deposited by him in this forum and hand over the same to R1 under proper acknowledgement

          Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 25^th May 2016

MEMBER                                         MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant:         NIL                                             For Respondents :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex. A1         Orignal credit bill dt. 17-9-2015 for Rs. 17,904/- issued by the R1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex. A2                   Legal notice dt. 17-10-15 issued by the Complainant to the Respondents.

Ex. A3                   Two postal receipts dt. 17-10-2015 along with one acknowledgement card.

Ex. A4         Original railway ticket from Kadapa to Tirupati and from Renigunta to Kadapa dt. 3-10-2015.

Ex. A5         Compact Disc (CD) partining to advertisement given by the respondents about Xperia Z1 series – water test.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondents:-    

MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1. Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant  
2. M/s Lot Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Shop No.                      9-10-15, D.No. 4/475, Nagarajupeta, Ayappaswamy Pillai Street, Kadapa.
3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by it’s the Managing Director, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,  Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044

B.V.P