D.O.F:25/02/16
D.O.O:18/7/16
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.77/16
Dated this, the18th day of July 2016
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Thomas.P.D, S/o Kuruvila Devasia, Paramundayil , : Complainant
Balla Po, R/at Kanhangad,Kasaragod
1. Sony India Pvt.Ltd, represented by its General Manager,
Head Office A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,
New Delhi-110044,
2. The Manager, Madonna systems, Sony authorised : Opposite parties
Certvice centre, TTN-11/498, Shakeela Complex,
Cltex Junction, Kannur-670002, Kannur.
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
That the complainant purchased Sony Xperia Z3 mobile phone M/s Digital Solutions on 13/10/14 for an amount of Rs.43955/- and the phone has got one year warranty. As per the advertisement of Sony Company the Xperia Z3 mobile phone manufactured and sold by them are water resistant and dust proof. But the complainant’s phone was neither water proof nor dust resistant. The mobile phone showed complaints from the beginning itself and it was over heating when photos are taken by its camera and touch screen was not working properly. Hence the complainant returned the phone to 2nd opposite party, the service centre for replacement. 2nd opposite party said that they sent the mobile to their service centre at cochin. Then the 2nd opposite party instead of replacing the same repaired and given back to complainant stating that the phone is working properly. But the complaint started to use the phone he found that the mobile is not working properly. Then the complainant again approached opposite party for replacement but opposite parties are not ready to replace the same. Instead of replacing the phone opposite party asked Rs.24563/- as repair charges. Now the phone is with the opposite party. Hence the complaint is filed for refund of the phone amount with future interest alleging deficiency in service against opposite party.
On admission of the complaint the Forum issued notice to opposite parties. Both opposite parties duly served notice and one Mr.Satheesh, Service Manager in charge of 2nd opposite party represented for both parties. Thereafter when the case was posted either for settlement or for version, no representation for both opposite parties. Hence name of both opposite parties called absent, set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A13 marked. Heard the complaint and perused the documents.
The case of the complainant is that by believing the advertisement made by the 1st opposite party the complainant purchase the mobile phone for an amount of Rs.43955/-. But at the beginning stage itself the mobile phone showed complaints. Moreover the opposite party asked repair charges within warranty period. There is no contra evidence before the Forum . Misleading advertisement and denial of after sale service amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled for the refund of the price of the phone.
In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.43955/- being the price of the mobile phone and further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings and Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Exts;
A1-retail invoice
A2- Vat receipt
A3-Startup guide
A4 to A8&A10 -email sent to op
A9,A12,A13- email reply from OP
Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva /Forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
