BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                                   Dated this the 4^th day of October 2018

                                                                             Filed on : 13.09.2017

PRESENT:

 Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                    President.

 Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                  Member

 Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                               Member.

                            CC.No.358/2017

                                  Between                   

O R D E R

Beena Kumari V.K.   Member

1)     A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

        The complainant Sri.Bibin K.B. had purchased a Sony Experia XA1 G3116 mobile blck model phone from Lulu Connect who is the 2^nd opposite party in this complaint.  On 04.09.2017.  The mobile phone was valued Rs.19,990/-.  In the 1^st week of purchase of the mobile phone itself the new mobile phone showed several complaints on its battery, camera and low charging speed. Therefore the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party – Lulu Connect on 07.09.2017 with the request to exchange or to replace the mobile phone with a new one.  But the 2^nd opposite party behaved in an irresponsible manner.  However as directed by the 2^nd opposite party the complainant approached the authorized service centre of Sony India Ltd.  The service centre declined to receive the defective mobile phone and they were reluctant to give proper service also to the defective mobile phone.  The complainant contended that the 2^nd opposite party – Lulu Connect was focusing only on the sale of the mobile phone and the 2^nd opposite party who are the authorized service centre failed to give any service after sale service.  The complainant contended that the 2^nd opposite party by not replacing the defective mobile phone had erred in giving proper service to the complainant and the complainant claimed that he is entitled to get compensation for the loss occurred to him in respect of the mobile phone purchased by him from the 2^nd opposite party – Lulu connect.

2)     Notices were issued to the opposite parties and the 1^st opposite party – Sony India Pvt. Ltd. did not respond to the notice served on them.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte.  Therefore the 2^nd opposite party – Lulu Connect filed their version in response to the notice received by them.

3)     Version of the 2^nd opposite party

        The 2^nd opposite party – Lulu Connect contended that the 2^nd opposite party is obviously an unnecessary party to the complaint that the 2^nd opposite party had sold the mobile phone to the complainant in good, perfect and excellent working condition and the complainant had purchased the mobile phone after throrough verification and without any third party interference, coercion.  The 2^nd opposite party being a dealer of Sony mobile phones had sold the mobile phone to the complainant. It is submitted that after sale service and warranties are governed by the policies of the manufacturer and the authorized service centre and the 2^nd opposite party has no role play in the matter complained of by the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party had rightly guided the complainant to approach the authorized service centre of Sony India Ltd.  It is submitted that being a dealer of Sony mobiles the 2^nd opposite party is not liable to replace the subject mobile phone with a new one, on the basis of warranty issued by the manufacturer and as per the service policy of the 1^st opposite party – Sony India Ltd and the manufacturer alone is liable and responsible to make good the manufacturing defect during the warranty period or to compensate the loss if any occurred to the complainant.  Therefore the 2^nd opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)     The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get a replacement of the defective mobile phone with a new one or to get the monetary loss occurred to him along with costs?

       The evidence in this case consisted of the oral evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 and the documentary evidences furnished were marked as Exbt.A1 to A3.  The opposite parties have furnished no evidence before this Forum.

5)        Issue No. (i)

        The complainant has purchased a Sony Mobile phone Xperia XA1 valued Rs.19,990/- as evidenced by Exbt.A1 invoice dated 04.09.2017 and new phone purchased showed several complaints on its battery, camera low charging etc and the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party – dealer and the authorized service centre on 07.09.2017.  But the authorized service centre did not accept the defective mobile phone for servicing.  The complainant produced no job sheet to show that the had approached the authorized service centre on 07.09.2017.  The Exbt.A2 job sheet dated 02.12.2017 shows that the set was entrusted with Madonna care centre, the authorized service centre of Sony India Ltd., with some scratches.  The Exbt.A2 (a) job sheet also dated 02.12.2017 shows that the mobile phone was entrusted with Madonna care centre with touch problem during the ‘warranty period’.  Again the mobile phone was entrusted with authorized service centre as per the job sheet dated 05.12.2017 with ‘touch problem’ during the warranty.  Thus the new phone showed recurring defect during the warranty period, which indicates that the mobile phone sold to the complainant was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect.  Thus we find that the complainant had proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party by selling a defective phone through its dealer the 2^nd opposite party – Lulu connect.  The 1^st issue is thus proved by the complainant.

Issue No. (ii)

        The 1^st opposite party – Sony India Pvt. Ltd has not appeared before this Forum despite receipt of notice from this Forum, which shows that the 1^st opposite party has no objection at all to the allegations raised in the complaint. The complainant has proved manufacturing defect in the mobile phone during the warranty period itself as is evident from the job sheets furnished by him.  Therefore he is entitled to get replacement of the defective mobile phone with a new one or to get refund of the price of Rs.19,900/- along with costs.

In the result the complaint is allowed and we direct as follows:

1.  The 1^st opposite party shall replace the defective mobile phone with a  new one or to refund the price of the mobile phone of Rs.19,900/-.
2. Both the opposite parties shall pay Rs.3000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the 1^st opposite party shall pay interest @ 12% p.a on the value of Rs.19,900/- from the 31^st day of receipt of this order.

         Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4^th day of October 2018.

                                                          Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

                                                          Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                          Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member.

                                          Forwarded by Order

                                          Senior Superintendent    

                                                APPENDIX

Opposite party’s Exhibits     ::    No

Depositions  :

          PW1  :         Bibin K.B

Date of Despatch   :

          By Hand      :

          By Post       :

 ………………………