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. 216/2014 Filed on 05.06.2014

ORDER DATED: 30.11.2016

Complainant:

Prakash. R, TRA 17, Sreesumam, Thamarabhagam Lane, Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695 011.

                                       (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.

(By Adv. J.S. Sabu)

2. Prompt Service, Sony Authorized Service Centre, 1^st Floor, Bethel Tower, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
3. Ebay India Pvt. Ltd., 14^th floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregon (E), Mumbai-400 063.
4. Dhiman Infotech, 148, LIG Colony, Indore-45200.

This C.C having been heard on 08.11.2016, the Forum on 30.11.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile through 3^rd opposite party on 16.03.2014 for Rs. 11,773/- and received the mobile sent by 3^rd opposite party through the 4^th opposite party on 22.03.2014.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer and 2^nd opposite party is the service centre.  The mobile became defective after few days’ use.  The second sim became defective and the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant entrusted the mobile to the 2^nd opposite party on 05.04.2014.  But after repair the complainant was unable to use BSNL sim in the set.  So again he approached the 2^nd opposite party and on 03.05.2014 the 2^nd opposite party returned the mobile stating that the motherboard of the set has been replaced.  After one day use the problem again occurred and when the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party the 2^nd opposite party advised him to use another sim.  The complainant used another sim, but there was no change.  The complainant entrusted the mobile to the 2^nd opposite party on 19.05.2014 but the same was not repaired in good condition till now by 1^st or 2^nd opposite party.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum for refund of Rs. 11,773/- and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 

Opposite parties 1 to 3 accepted notice and filed version. 

Opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly filed version.  These opposite parties admitted the purchase of the mobile by the complainant.  When the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party on 05.04.2014, the 2^nd opposite party found a problem with sim board and provided necessary support to the complainant.  The complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party on 25.04.2014 with restarting problem and 2^nd opposite party replaced the PC 13 of the handset and carried out a software upgrade in order to rectify the alleged problem.  On 19.05.2014 also complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party with same problem.  The 2^nd opposite party service engineer on inspection could not find any problem and hence requested him to take back the set.  But the complainant refused to take back.  The complainant’s attitude became hostile and he began to demand refund from the 2^nd opposite party.  The present complaint has been filed without cause of action and the complainant is not entitled to any relief.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed and direct the complainant to collect the handset from 2^nd opposite party. 

The 3^rd opposite party filed version, but the complainant at the time of giving deposition stated that he has no grievance against this opposite party.  The complainant also sought no relief against 4^th opposite party.    

Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Exts. P1 to P5.  He was also examined as PW1.  Opposite parties 1 &2 did not file any affidavit. 

Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on opposite party’s side?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile of the 1^st opposite party through 3^rd opposite party on 16.03.2014 and received the same on 21.04.2014 for Rs. 11,773/- as per Ext. P1.  But the mobile became defective after few days and entrusted the same to the 2^nd opposite party on 05.04.2014 and the 2^nd opposite party returned the same on 21.04.2014 as per Ext. P2.  But defects occurred again and entrusted the same to the 2^nd opposite party on 25.04.2014 and received back on 03.05.2014 as per Ext. P3.  But the defect was not rectified and again given to the 2^nd opposite party on 19.05.2014 as per Ext. P4 and the defect was not cured.  Now the mobile is with the 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly filed version admitting that the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party on the above said days and defect was rectified when he approached 2^nd opposite party on 05.04.2014 and 03.09.2014.  But there was no defect with the mobile when he handed over the same on 19.05.2014 to the 2^nd opposite party.  Moreover complainant refused to take back the same.  Here the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not produce any document to show that the mobile is in good condition.  At the same time complainant produced all the documents to substantiate his case.  On going through the document it is clear that the mobile is defective from the very beginning.  So we cannot compel the complainant for taking back the mobile which became defective after few days of purchase.  Moreover opposite parties did not take any steps to convince the Forum that the mobile is defect free.  So we cannot deny justice to the complainant after a period of 2 years.  Therefore complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the price of the mobile i.e; Rs. 11,773/- along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.  The opposite parties can retain the mobile after complying the order.      

In the result, complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the price of the mobile i.e; Rs. 11,773/- along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 11,773/- and Rs. 10,000/- together carry interest @ 12% from the date of default till payment.  The opposite parties can retain the mobile after complying the order.     

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 30^th day of November 2016.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 216/2014

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Prakash

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of invoice/bill dated 18.03.2014

P2     - Copy of retail invoice/cash/memo/bill issued by 2^nd O.P dated

             21.04.2014

P3     - Copy of retail invoice/cash/memo/bill issued by 2^nd O.P dated

            03.05.2014

P4     - Copy of service job sheet issued by 2^nd O.P

P5     - Copy of e-mails

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb