BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 30/04/2011

Date of Order : 18/06/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 222/2011

Between

Biju Markose, :: Complainant

Kallungal House, (By party-in-person)

A.K.G. Bhavan Road,

Kothamangalam - 686 691.

And

1. Sony Ericsson Mobile :: Opposite parties

Communications (India) Private Ltd., (Op.pts 1 to 3 absent)

4^th Floor, Dhaka House, 18/17,

Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005.

2. Swiss Time House,

Shop No. 856, 1^st Floor,

G.C.D.A. Marine Complex,

Marine Drive, Ernakulam.

3. Mega Blaze Mobile World,

Opp. Revenue Tower,

Kothamangalam – 686 691.

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The undisputed facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

On 09-05-2010, the complainant purchased a mobile hand set from the 3^rd opposite party with one year warranty. The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the product and the 2^nd opposite party is the service centre of the manufacturer and the 3^rd opposite party is the dealer. In December 2010, the set became defunct and it was entrusted with the 2^nd opposite party for repairs. They redelivered the same only after one month stating that the PCB was replaced. However, after 2 or 3 days the very same complaint recurred. Accordingly on 27-01-2011, the complainant again entrusted the same for repairs. But after 2 or 4 days the complaints persisted. Time and again, he had to bring the gadget to the service centre for repairs. The complainant requested to replace the set but the same was turned down by the opposite parties. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the hand set or refund the price of the set that is Rs. 7,800/- together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. In spite of service of notice, the opposite parties 1 and 2 chose to remain absent for their own reasons. The service of notice of 3^rd opposite party was not completed. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on his side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.

3. The points that emanated for consideration are :

i) Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement

of the hand set or refund of its price?

ii) Compensation, if any?

4. Point No. i) :- The complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question from the 3^rd opposite party at a price of Rs. 7,800/- on 09-05-2010 evidenced by Ext. A2. Ext. A3 would show that the complainant had to approach the 2^nd opposite party on the following occasions to get his grievances redressed on four times.

Sl. No.	Exhibits	Date	complaint	Remarks
1.	A3	10-12-2010	Insert SIM error message Insert SIM call list empty	S/W done but PBM not solve PCB replaced checked OK
2.	A4	27-01-2011	Colour problem Display colour fade	SW done but PBM not solve PCB replaced checked OK
3.	A5	09-03-2011	Can't power on (phone is dead) colour problem. Dead Blue display	Software upgrade checked OK
4.	A6	19-03-2011	Colour problem. Turns off randomly and remains off, phone turns off and restarts by itself, Menus and/or application slow and sometimes hand. Some times blue display, auto off, restart, hang.

5. The recurring defects of the hand set would indicate that the mobile hand set of the complainant suffers from inherent manufacturing defect, that too, within the warranty period. Ext. A7 goes to show that the 1^st opposite party had provided one year warranty for the product from the date of its purchase. The absence of the manufacturer as well as the service centre in this Forum despite service of notice speaks volumes. The opposite parties ought to have paid attention towards the lawful grievance of the complainant in which they failed. The above conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, the 1^st opposite party the manufacturer is liable either to replace the product with a new one or refund its price with interest. Evidently, the complainant was running from pillar to post to get grievances redressed before approaching this Forum.

6. Point No. ii) :- A mobile phone is now-a-days something of an essentiality especially for one who uses it. It may be pertinent to note that it is not few use it but may do statistics prove that. That is why, this Forum is of the view that this consumer has been wronged and during the proceedings the consumer did express his apprehension at a Company such as Soni Ericsson of International repute should go as if much to shut an ear to a consumer's clamour. The consumer has had a long tide to swim, we fix the compensation at Rs. 3,000/-.

7. In the result, we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows :

1. The 1^st opposite party shall replace the mobile handset in question with a new one of the same price with fresh warranty according to the choice of the complainant. In that event, the complainant shall return the defective handset to the 1^st opposite party simultaneously.

2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant for the reasons stated above.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 18^th day of June 2011.