BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 10/11/2014

Date of Order : 31/08/2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 830/2014

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

1. The complainant Sri. Anand P.S. had purchased a mobile phone set 'SonyXPeria ZL C 6502' from the 3^rd opposite party Mobile Zone on payment of Rs. 26,000/- on 06-03-2011. The 3^rd opposite party is the authorised sale centre of the 1^st opposite party Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. The 1^st opposite party provided one year warranty for the product from the date of purchase and in addition to that 6 months accidental warranty was also provided. Soon after the purchase of the handset, the device started showing problems at its power charging display system, sound box and caused much discomfort and difficulties. The set was given to the authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party on 27-06-2014. After curing the defects, they delivered the set on 15-07-2014. Again on 02-08-2014, the handset became defective showing that very same complaint and the repaired handset was delivered to the complainant on 25-08-2014 with different IMEI number. The complainant demanded for the same model with same configuration, but the 2^nd opposite party could provide only Refirb sets. Again on 30-08-2014, the handset showed very same complaints again and it was handed over to the service centre for repair. The delay in delivering the repaired handset caused severe mental agony to the complainant. Thus, the complainant was provided with a used mobile set, but it also showed technical default. It is submitted that the 2^nd opposite party did not provide a new standby mobile set or did not repair the impugned mobile set. Thus, the complainant demanded either to replace the handset with a brand new mobile set or to refund the price paid by him for the impugned handset, but there was no response. Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 24-09-2014. To the legal notice also, there was no response. Hence, this complaint was filed seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the mobile or to refund the price of Rs. 26,600/- paid by the complainant and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and inconveniences caused to the complainant along with costs.

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Forum. The opposite parties 1,2 and 4 appeared before this Forum in response to the notices served on them, but they have not filed any version. The opposite parties or their representatives were absent, when the case was posted for hearing on 25-08-2015. Therefore, the learned counsel for the complainant was heard and this complaint is disposed off ex-parte.

3. The evidence in this case consisted of the documentary evidences marked as Exts. A1 to A10 on the side of the complainant. The complainant adduced no oral evidence.

4. On the pleading, the issues settled for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant has proved inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile handset purchased by him from the opposite parties? If so, whether he is entitled to get replacement of the set or to get refund of its price?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant?

3. Reliefs and costs?

5. Issue No. i. :- The complainant purchased a mobile phone 'Sony X Peria ZL C 6502' from the 3^rd opposite party Mobile Zone for Rs. 26,000/- on 06-03-2014 as evidenced by Ext. A1 invoice. The agreed features in Sony X Peria ZL C 6502 are, it is with 2 GB RAM, 13 MP (Camera Primary) 2 MP (Secondary Camera), full HD, availability Upgrades, less weight, handy, Internal Memory 16 GB and Supports External Memory of 64 GB. But soon after the purchase of the above handset, the device showed problems at its power charging display system, sound box and on 27-06-2014 the mobile set was given to the 2^nd opposite party Madona Electronics who is the authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party Sony Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. and the handset was delivered after repair on 15-07-2014 as evidenced by Ext. A2. In the very next month ie. on 02-08-2014, the handset showed very same complaints and the mobile phone was entrusted with the 2^nd opposite party for repair and the phone was delivered, after repair to the complainant on 25-08-2014 as evidenced by Ext. A3 service job sheet issued by the 2^nd opposite party Madona Electronics. The phone delivered in the above two occasions are Refirb handsets with a different IMEI numbers. Therefore, the complainant demanded for the same model to which the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the company had stopped manufacturing of that category of phones. Again on 30-08-2014, the handset was entrusted with the 2^nd opposite party for repair and the set is not yet returned to the complainant. This time the 2^nd opposite party handed over a used device and the said handset also developed technical default like signal/network problems. From the above facts, it is evident that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant showed very serious defects within 3 months of its purchase on 06-03-2014. It is further revealed that the handset was entrusted with the 2^nd opposite party for repair for 3 times within the first 4 months that too during the warranty period. We find that the complainant has sufficiently proved that the mobile phone purchased by him was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. This issue is decided in favour of the complainant and we find that the complainant is entitled to get refund of its price or replacement of the impugned mobile phone with a brand new mobile phone of the same model and make.

6. Issue No. ii. :- The complainant issued a legal notice dated 24-09-2014 (as evidence by Ext. A5) to the 1^st opposite party manufacturer demanding replacement of the impugned mobile phone with a brand new mobile set with same configuration and function or to refund the cost of the mobile set along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. We find that that there was no response to the above legal notice from the 1^st opposite party. Moreover, we also find that there was considerable delay in returning the mobile set after repair and the phone entrusted with the 2^nd opposite party on 30-08-2014 has not yet been returned to the complainant, further the used mobile provided to the complainant on 30-08-2014 was also defective. Thus, due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant had to suffer severe mental agony. We also find that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant is entitled to compensation and we fix it at Rs. 13,000/-.

7. Issue No. iii. :- On getting the legal notice from the complainant, the 1^st opposite party had neither replaced the defective phone nor refunded the cost of the mobile. Had the 1^st opposite party refunded the cost of the mobile phone or replaced it, this complaint would not have been filed by the complainant. The complainant expended much of his valuable time and money to file this complaint. Therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings. We fix the costs at Rs. 2,000/-.

8. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct as follows :-

1. The 1^st and 4^th opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the cost of the mobile phone of Rs. 26,000/- to the complainant or shall replace the impugned mobile with a brand new mobile phone of the same model and make.

2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant Rs. 13,000/- (Rs. Thirteen thousand only) towards compensation for the inconveniences and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

3. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount due will carry interest from the due date till realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of August 2015.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil