BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 383/2013 Filed on 06.09.2013
Dated: 15.02.2014
Complainant:
Rahul Anand, CRD/PRSG, LPSC, Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram-695547.
(Party in person)
Opposite parties:
- Sony Mobile Service Centre (Sony Xperia), ACCEL, Opp: Spencer’s, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.
This C.C having been heard on 01.02.2014, the Forum on 15.02.2014 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Complainant herein purchased a mobile handset model Sony Xperia U manufactured by the 2nd opposite party from an online vendor ‘Adexmart’ on 5th June 2012. Touch screen of the said phone stopped functioning in February 2013 and got it repaired through warranty. Subsequently on July 2013 again the same problem happened and when he approached the service centre for repairs, they refused to do it under warranty. The contention of the complainant is that the touch screen was replaced on February 2013 and it should be having a warranty upto February 2014. So he prays for a direction to get his mobile set replaced under warranty along with compensation.
Notice was served to the opposite parties. But both of them neither appeared nor filed any version or contested the matter. So we proceeded exparte against them.
Points raised:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Reliefs and costs if any.
Complainant filed affidavit along with 3 documents. The mobile set in dispute was produced before this Forum. It was verified and returned to the complainant.
Points (i) & (ii):- On perusal of the mobile hand set produced before this Forum, it seems that the touch screen is not working. In a touch screen phone, if the touch screen is not responding, then the very purpose of buying the same is not served. Here within a year of its purchase, complainant got the touch screen replaced. Again the same complaint appears. Without an expert opinion even without common knowledge, the defect of the handset can be appreciated. Complainant claims for repairing the same, since he contends that the replaced part also carry extended warranty. To rebut this contention, nothing is before us. Being a multinational company, it is unfair on their part in not contesting the matter. So we are going with the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile set of the complainant free of charge within a month of receipt of this order. If the defect is not repairable then replace the defective set with a new one of the same price. If replacement is given then the complainant is directed to hand over the defective set to the opposite parties at the time of replacement. This order is to be complied within a month of receipt of the same.
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 15th day of February 2014.
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 383/2013
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of bill for Rs. 15,590/-.
P2 - Retail invoice/cash/memo/bill dated 25.02.2013.
P3 - Tax invoice dated 05.06.2012 for Rs. 15,590/-.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
