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. 109/2015 Filed on 13.03.2015

ORDER DATED: 30.11.2017

Complainant:

A.G. Unnikrishnan, Sailakshmi, Greedale, Mudavanmugal, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram-695 012.

                               (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Sony Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, 2^nd Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

(By Adv. J.S. Sabu)

2. M/s Prompt Services, Authorized Sony Mobile Service Centre, Opp: Josco Jewellers, Plamood, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. M/s Twins Mobiles, Shalom Building (Opp: Spencer), LIC Junction, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 

This C.C having been heard on 26.10.2017, the Forum on 30.11.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone manufactured by 1^st opposite party from the 3^rd opposite party on 02.04.2014 for Rs. 27,000/-.  The small flip cover over the charting port got severed from the handset exposing the port and the handset developed problem soon after this.  Moreover the microphone of the handset was not working and he has to use either earphone or put the phone on speaker to hear the conversation.  So he approached the 2^nd opposite party service centre and after inspecting the phone the manager advised him to contact the customer care centre.  Then the complainant sent e-mails, but nothing has been done to solve his problem and the warranty was only upto 02.04.2015.  There is manufacturing defect with the set and hence the complainant approached this Forum for replacement or reimbursement of the cost of the handset along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

The opposite parties 1 & 2 accepted notice and entered appearance.  The 3^rd opposite party accepted notice, but failed to appear and therefore set exparte.  The 1^st opposite party filed version and 2^nd opposite party did not file any version and set exparte. 

The 1^st opposite party filed version stating that the complainant purchased the mobile phone and this opposite party provides one year warranty from the time of its original purchase.  This opposite party is liable to provide free of cost repair on its products in cases when the product is proved to be defective due to improper material, workmanship, any manufacturing defect or any other problem that has arisen in the product from the manufacturer’s side and not when the defect has arisen due to an external cause which is beyond the control of this opposite party.  The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party after 8 months of purchase with mic not working issue and found to be liquid lodged.  The complainant took back the handset without depositing it, no job sheet was created.  There was no inherent defect in the handset as alleged.  The handset could not be covered under warranty as the same was damaged due to its negligent use by the complainant which is beyond the control of this opposite party.  The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed.    

The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Ext. P1 to P8.   The commission report was marked as Ext. C1.  The 1^st opposite party neither file any affidavit in lieu of chief and nor marked any document.

Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone manufactured by 1^st opposite party from the 3^rd opposite party on 02.04.2014 for Rs. 27,000/- as per Ext. P1 and P1(a).  The small flip cover over the charting port got severed from the handset exposing the port and the handset developed problem soon after this.  Moreover the microphone of the handset was not working and he has to use either earphone or put the phone on speaker to hear the conversation.  So he approached the 2^nd opposite party service centre and after inspecting the phone the manager advised him to contact the customer care centre.  Then the complainant sent Exts. P3 to P7 e-mails, but nothing has been done to solve his problem and the warranty was only upto 02.04.2015 as per Ext. P2.  There is manufacturing defect with the set and hence the complainant approached this Forum for replacement or reimbursement of the cost of the handset along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.  The contention raised by the 1^st opposite party is that at the time of inspection it was found that liquid was lodged in the handset.  The complainant filed commission application and an expert commissioner was appointed by the Forum.  The expert commissioner filed Ext. C1 report.  In page 4 of the Commission Report the commissioner stated that “considering the fact that the phone has not yet repaired, the claim of the service centre that the water ingress has caused the microphone problem seems out of place.  The service centre may have their own unique mechanism to verify water ingress, but in my opinion if water ingress had happened it would have affected the total operation of phone not the microphone alone”.  The opposite parties did not file any objection to the commission report.  Moreover the commissioner stated that this Z series of phone is not repairable.  Thus on considering the documents, statements and Ext. C1 report, we are of the opinion that there is defect with the mobile phone and the opposite parties are liable for that.  Hence the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund the price of the mobile i.e; Rs. 27,000/- along with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. 

In the result, complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund the price of the mobile i.e; Rs. 27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand only) along with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of Rs. 27,000/- shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of default till payment.  The complainant shall handover the defective set to the 1^st opposite party when the opposite parties comply the above 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 2017.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 109/2015

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of invoice dated 02.04.2014

P1(a) - Copy of invoice

P2     - Copy of warranty card

P3     - Copy of mail dated 07.12.2014

P4     - Copy of mail dated 08.12.2014

P5     - Copy of mail

P6     - Copy of mail dated 11.12.2014

P7     - Copy of mail dated 20.12.2014

P8     - Copy of instructions regarding use of the device

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

  V     COURT EXHIBIT :

          C1     - Commission Report 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb