D.O.F. 22.07.2013
D.O.O. 22.12.2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. Roy Paul : President
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2014.
C.C.No.210/2013
Vinayak Gopalakrishnan
‘Neel Kamal’
Temple Road, Payyannur : Complainant
Kannur District – 670 307
1. Sony Authorised Service Centre
Madonna Systems and Service
TT-11/498 Shakeela Complex
Caltex Junction, Kannur – 2 : Opposite Parties
2. Sony India Registered Office
A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044
(Rep. By Adv. B.P. Saseendran)
O R D E R
Sri. Babu Sebastian, Member
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 against the opposite party (herein after referred in short as OP) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties praying for directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.80,000 as compensation.
As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant contends that on 6th September, 2012, he has purchased Sony model : Sony Xperia Nea L (MT251) from Sangeetha Stores, Mohti shan complex at Mangalore for Rs.18,705. The mobile started problem like the phone gets stuck during the calls and frequent software crashes and it is given for repair on 2 occasions, the 1st OP repaired and gave, but still the problem continued. Even after repeated service the mobile is not in use and will result in not receiving any calls, he also lost a lot of business contracts and clients. Even now the opposite parties are not ready to replace the phone which is well within the warranty period. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.
After receiving complaint, Forum sent notice to both parties. The opposite parties have filled their version and have stated that, the 1st OP is the authorized service centre of the 2nd OP. The Ops contended that the complaint filed is vexatious, baseless and is more of an abuse of the process of law. They admits the complainant approached the authorized service centre of the OP No.2 with regards to the alleged defects in the mobile phone. Then upon inspection by the Service Engineer of the OP, it was found that the said handset was hanging due to a software problem and subsequently the software of the handset was upgraded and the handset was working perfectly.
The Ops further admits that the Ops are ready to settle the matter amicably with the complainant by offering to exachange the handset or refund the amount equal to purchase value of the handset. It is submitted that the aforesaid replacement was offered only for the sake of customer satisfaction and not towards admission of any liability on the part of the Ops.
The Ops further contended that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands as the handset was not suffering from any defects whatsoever and the complainant is seeking to make wrongful gain from the Ops. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed.
On the above pleadings the main thing is to be considered is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops?
Complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit and produced Ext.A1 to A5. Complainant examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A5 on his side he had adduced evidence in tune with the pleading. The complainant has produced the retail invoice Ext.A2, which shows that the handset is worth Rs.18,705 complainant purchased that model mobile phone for 18,705 within three months, the mobile started some problems and entrusted OP for service, OP repaired the mobile twice but problem still exists and the Ops are not ready to replace the phone which is within the warranty period. In this case Ops submitted before the Forum that they have no oral or documentary evidence except their version. The 5th para of the version filed by the OP admits that the complainant approached the authorized service centre of the OP No.2 with regards to alleged defects of the handset, upon inspection by the Service Engineer it was found that handset was hanging due to software problem and the handset was upgraded, now the handset was working perfectly. The para No.5 by their version, Ops further admits that “Ops are ready to settle the matter amicable with offering to exchange the handset with a similar value hand set or refused the amount equal to the purchase value of the handset. At this juncture we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. As per the version of the Ops, they are ready to exchange or refund the amount of purchase price of handset. Hence we are of the opinion that OPs are liable to refund the purchase price of the handset worth Rs.18,705 and also entitled for cost of this litigation Rs.1000. Hence order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the OP to refund the purchase price of the mobile phone worth Rs.18,705 (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Five only) and also pay an amount of Rs.1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order under provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Bill dated 20.12.2012
A2. Bill dated 06.09.2012.
A3. Bill dated 09.02.2013.
A4. Bill dated 19.06.2013.
A5. Service job sheet daated 04.02.2013.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
