BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                                                                   Date of filing : 03.08.2016

                                                                                              Date of Order : 08.02.2017

PRESENT:

 Shri. Cherian K. Kuraikose,                                   President

 Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                 Member  
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                        Member.

                            CC.No.450/2016

                                   Between

O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member 

1. The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant had purchased a Sony Xperia E4g/Ds/Black D2043 mobile phone from the 3^rd opposite party on 12.06.2015 at a price of Rs.12,500/- which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party, manufacturer had provided 1 year warranty against manufacturing defects including its accessories. On very next day of its purchases, ie., on 13.06.2015 the above said phone showed some defects, like automatically switching off/shut down and restart etc. The complainant had entrusted the defective phone with the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party examined the mobile phone and informed the complainant that the phone was enabled with 4G facility and due to non-availability of proper signal of 4G, the phone was searching for 4G signal and the issue of the malfunction will have to be solved automatically. But the same problem was repeated on 16.06.2015 and the complainant reported the matter with the 3^rd opposite party but no support was extended. Later after waiting for some time on 07.08.2015 the complainant again approached the 3^rd opposite party.  On that day the opposite party recognized the issue, but waived the demand for replacement under warranty and directed to approach the Sony service center to take necessary action for replacement under warranty. On finding the misbehavior and unfair attitude of the 3^rd opposite party who is liable for extending support as per the warranty condition, the complainant had issued a letter to the Customer Care Service Centre of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in which he explained the entire issues. On 11.08.2015 one Shikhadar had issued a reply letter stated that due attention has been given to the issue and necessary direction was given to the Regional office to expedite resolution.  The offer was like a drawing of line in water. Again the complainant had approached with the same complaint with the M/s.Madona care centre, Vyttila who is the authorized service centre of the opposite parties 1 and 2. But, they could not rectify the defects of the gadget and same problem still persists. On 09.05.2016 as per the advice of the service centre, the complainant entrusted his mobile phone with them with complaints like battery problem, set automatically getting switching off, etc. After waiting for 19 days the mobile handset was returned to the complainant with comments “swap part replaced s/w done set ready” and condition of set as ‘B’ (subject to check). On 30.05.2017 again the mobile handset was entrusted to the service centre which was returned on 21.06.2016.  In mean time the complainant had sent a letter on 04.06.2016 demanding of replacement of the mobile hand set to opposite party 1 which was delivered on 09.06.2016.  Another letter was issued to the 1^st opposite party on 23.06.2016 demanding for favourable action as per the letter dated 04.06.2016.  The complainant alleged in his complaint the one year guarantee was over and the mobile handset was in useless condition.  The complainant also stated that the keyboard of the phone was not functioning properly.  The keys (alphabets) “B$ H” were also defunct.  The complainant also stated that the act of the opposite arties were against the terms and conditions narrated in their warranty.  It is contended that the illegal attitude of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties amounted to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice also. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset with new one or to refund its price to the complainant.  He also sought for compensation and costs of the proceedings.  Hence this complaint.

2)      Despite service of notice from this Forum, the opposite parties 2^nd and 3^rd had opted not to contest the matter for their own reasons.  Notice to the 1^st 1^st opposite party not seen served and returned. The complainant did not take any fresh steps against the opposite party 1, even after give repeated opportunities. Hence we shall not give any direction or relief against the 1^st opposite party.

3)      Evidence in this case consisted of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exbt. A1 to A4 were marked on his side as documentary evidences.  Heard the learned Counsel for the complainant.

4)      Issues came up for considerations are as follows.

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 2 and 3?
2.   Whether the complainant is entitled to get either to replace the mobile handset or to refund its price from the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties?
3. Whether the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5)      Issue Nos. (i) and (ii)

          According to the complainant he had purchased a mobile handset from the 3^rd opposite party on 12.06.2015 at a price of Rs.12,500/- which was manufactured and marketed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The mobile handset showed some defects on very next day of its purchase ie., on 13.06.2015. The defects noticed in the mobile handset were malfunctioning automatic switching off/ shut down and restart …..etc. Due to the above problems, the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party tried to cure the defects of the handset. But they failed to rectify the mobile phone and thereby, the complainant again approached M/s. Madona Care who is the service centre of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. But the authorized service centre also failed either to find out the reasons for the existence of defects in the mobile or to rectify the same. The complainant approached the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties who are the manufacturer of the disputed mobile handset for replacing the mobile handset with new one.  The complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties to take an appropriate action for replacement of the mobile handset but the opposite parties did not do anything to redress the grievances of the complainant.

6)      Exbt. A1 invoice issued by the 3^rd opposite party on 12.06.2015 showed that the complainant had purchased the disputed mobile handset from the 3^rd opposite party at a price of Rs.12,500/- which was manufactured and marketed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Exbt. A2 is the warranty card with terms and conditions of the disputed mobile handset, which shows that the manufacturer provided one year warranty to the disputed mobile handset. Exbt. A3 service job sheet dated 12.06.2015 issued by M/s. Madona Care Centre who is the authorized service centre of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties showed that the complainant had entrusted his disputed mobile handset for rectification of problems such as, set automatic off, low battery backup…etc. In Exbt. A3, 2^nd page of the job sheet dated on 28.04.2016 shows that the low battery problem of the disputed mobile handset was serviced by M/s.Madona Care Centre.  Exbt. A4 series shows that the complainant had sent a letters and e-mail to the opposite parties regarding the defects of the mobile handset.

7)      According to the complainant, the mobile handset showed some malfunctioning from the beginning of its purchase.  The opposite parties failed either to rectify the defects of the mobile phone or to replace with new one to the complainant. The Exbt. A3 job sheets, Exbt.A4 letters and email communications which were pointed out that the disputed mobile handset suffered some serious manufacturing defects and hence it became defunct. The complainant alleged in his complaint that, after receipt of the legal notice from this Forum, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties did not do anything to rectify the defect of the handset or to refund its price even when the disputed mobile handset was under the warranty period.            In the absence of the contrary evidence, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is believable and the opposite parties2 and 3 are liable to compensate the same. Exbt. A4 email communications and letters evidently proved that there is serious deficiency in service happened on the side of the opposite parties. Exbt. A3 job sheets 2^nd page dated on 28.04.2016 clearly shows that the disputed mobile handset became defunct under the warranty period. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is believable and he is entitled to get either to replace the mobile handset or to refund its price from the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Thus the issue Nos. (i) and (ii) in favour of the complainant.

8)       Issue No. (iii)

We find that there is serious deficiency in service happened on the side of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Due to the above said reasons, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships financial loss… etc. which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant. We award an amount of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

9)       In the result we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund an amount of Rs.12,500/- to the complainant which being the price of the disputed handset as per the Exbt. A1  Retail invoice.
2. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall also jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 12% interest p.a. from the 31^st day of receipt of this order till the date of payment.  

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8^th day of February 2018.

                                                      Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

 Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

 Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

Forwarded by Order

    Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch   :

          By Hand      :

          By Post       :

                                                APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:          Nil

                                         …................