BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 460/2014 Filed on 21.11.2014
ORDER DATED: 16.10.2017
Complainant:
Sreenivasa Sarma, T.C 7/1151, 3, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram-13.
(By Adv. Aparna V.C)
Opposite parties:
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Muscat Towers, S.A Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020.
- QRS Retail Ltd., Authorized Dealer, represented by its Managing Director, Reg. Office at 225/2424, Raymond Building, 2nd Floor, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.
(By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair for 2nd O.P)
- Accel Frontline, Global IT Service, represented by its Managing Director, Bhadrenjely Towers, Near Corporation Bank, Vellayambalam, Sasthamangalam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-10.
This C.C having been heard on 11.08.2017, the Forum on 16.10.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI: MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Sony Xperia U model mobile phone manufactured by Sony Company on 11.05.2013 from 2nd opposite party dealer for Rs. 13,000/-. But from the very first day itself the mobile set started developing problems like disturbance during speech, the set has to be charged twice a day etc. The complainant initially thought that the problems are usually for android phones and therefore he didn’t take it seriously. On 3rd October 2013, the mobile set became unresponsive as touch sensor failed. The mobile set was entrusted to 3rd opposite party, the authorized service centre for repairs as per the instruction of 2nd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party returned the mobile after one hour and informed that the 3rd opposite party replaced some spare parts and cured the defect. But the 3rd opposite party did not give any bill even on demand. The mobile developed several problems again and the complainant has to visit the 3rd opposite party frequently. On 12.07.2014 the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party to get it repaired. The 3rd opposite party repaired the set and charged Rs. 550/- as the warranty period was over. But the mobile did not work properly even after that and the complainant again approached the 3rd opposite party for maintenance. The complainant contacted the 1st opposite party over phone but the 1st opposite party asked the complainant to approach the 3rd opposite party. But the 3rd opposite party could not resolve the problems. The complainant sent e-mails to 1st opposite party on 18.07.2014, 23.07.2014 and 13.08.2014, but the 1st opposite party did not respond to the e-mails. On 19.08.2014 the 1st opposite party gave a reply stating that they will sort out the matter at the earliest. But even after a lapse of 3 months nothing has been done by the 1st opposite party and the mobile set is still with the 3rd opposite party. By this time the complainant purchased another Samsung mobile for Rs. 3,750/-. The attitude of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for refund of Rs. 13,000/- being the cost of the mobile with 12% interest from the date of purchase till realization or to direct opposite parties to replace the same along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost.
Opposite parties 1 & 3 accepted notice, but failed to appear, therefore opposite parties 1 and 3 set expare. The 2nd opposite party filed version.
The 2nd opposite party filed version stating that the complainant had approached this opposite party in October 2013, alleging some defects to Xperia U model of Sony. It is submitted that this opposite party is only a dealer and does not undertake any repair/servicing of the products and this opposite party requested the complainant to meet the 3rd opposite party. This opposite party understands that the defect of the product is cured and the complainant is not willing to take the product back after paying the service charges. The complainant had conducted trial use of the product and its features and after being fully satisfied with the specification and price had selected the product. It is submitted that the alleged problem had occurred 4 months after the purchase of the product. The said fact would show that the product was defect free at the time of purchase. Hence no liability can be attributable to this opposite party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P7. The complainant was examined as PW1. The 2nd opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination.
Issues:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs sought for?
Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Sony Xperia U model mobile phone on 11.05.2013 for Rs. 13,000/- from the 2nd opposite party as per Ext. P1. But from the first day itself the mobile set started developing problems. There was problem and disturbance during speech and the phone used to get disconnected while talking. The complainant initially thought that such problems are usual for Android phone and therefore he didn’t take it so seriously. It is stated that on 03.10.2013 the mobile set became unresponsive and on advice of 2nd opposite party the set was entrusted to 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party returned the set after curing the defects, but no receipt was given. The complainant approached the 3rd opposite party frequently with the mobile set for curing problems. On 12.07.2014, the complainant had approached the 3rd opposite party to get the mobile repaired. After repair 3rd opposite party returned the phone and charged Rs. 550/- since the warranty period was over. The original of the bill is Ext. P2. But the mobile was not working properly and the complainant again entrusted the same to 3rd opposite party for repair. The complainant sent several e-mails to the 1st opposite party and copy of e-mails are marked as Exts. P3 to P5. The 1st opposite party sent reply on 19.08.2014 as per Ext. P6. But even after a lapse of 3 months nothing has been done by the 1st opposite party and the mobile is still with the 3rd opposite party. The complainant also purchased another mobile. Therefore the complainant asked for refund of price of mobile along with compensation and cost. The 1st opposite party manufacturer and 3rd opposite party service centre are exparte. The 2nd opposite party contended that the complainant was satisfied with the set at the time of purchase. The complainant purchased the said product on 11.05.2013 and the alleged defect occurred after 5 months on 03.10.2013. Hence it is evident that the 2nd opposite party had sold good perfect mobile in perfect working condition. In this case the mobile is with the 3rd opposite party service centre and the service centre did not come before this Forum for contesting the case. But the complainant admits that the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party on 12.07.2014 for repairing the mobile and after repair the 3rd opposite party returned the phone and charges Rs. 550/- (Ext. P2). But the mobile did not work properly even after that and the complainant had to take it again to the 3rd opposite party for maintenance and it is with the 3rd opposite party still now. Even though the 3rd opposite party did not contest the case the complainant did not produce any document to show that the mobile was repaired several times within warranty period. The only evidence produced by the complainant to show that the mobile is repaired is Ext. P2 dated 12.07.2014. It is after the expiry of warranty and no evidence was produced to show that it is again given for repair. Moreover the 2nd opposite party at the time of cross examining the complainant, the complainant deposed that “താങ്കള് service station-ല് പോയ കാര്യവും phone ശരിയാക്കിയില്ല എന്ന കാര്യവും complaint-ലോ affidavit-ലോ പറയാതിരിക്കാന് കാരണമുണ്ടോ (Q) That may be an omission (A). There is no evidence to show that the mobile was not working after issuance of Ext. P2 bill. But the 3rd opposite party even after accepting notice failed to appear before this Forum. If the complainant did not collect the mobile after paying the repair charges, the 3rd opposite party had the option to produce the same before this Forum. But the 3rd opposite party failed to appear before this Forum and contest the case. So we go with the complainant and the mobile is with the 3rd opposite party from 2014. The complainant also produced Ext. P7 to show that he had purchased another mobile. There is deficiency of service on the part of 3rd opposite party and is liable to compensate for that. The mobile is with the 3rd opposite party for almost 3 years and the condition of mobile is also not known. So complaint is partly allowed by directing the 3rd opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant along with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed by directing the 3rd opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant along with cost of Rs. 2,000/- within one month of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of default till payment with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16th day of October 2017.
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 460/2014
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Sreenivasa Sarma
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Retail invoice dated 11.05.2013
P2 - Gate pass cum delivery challan dated 12.07.2014
P3 - Copy of mail dated July 18
P4 - Copy of mail dated July 23
P5 - Copy of mail dated Aug 13
P6 - Copy of mail dated Aug 14
P7 - Invoice dated 15.07.2014
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
