BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 14/2011 Filed on 20.01.2011
Dated : 30.11.2011
Complainant :
Anoop. S.S, S/o Sasidharan, Jeevamritham, Karumom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Pallichal S.K. Pramod)
Opposite party :
The Manager, Accel, Thiruvananthapuram, T.C 24/665, Chahaya, Thycaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 28.11.2011, the Forum on 30.11.2011 delivered the following :
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
The complainant is working as the Manager Advertisement in Kerala Koumudi flash news daily and permanently residing in the above said address. On 20.05.2010, the complainant entrusted his Sony Ericson XI Experia Model mobile phone, worth Rs. 30,000/- to the opposite party who is the authorized service centre of Sony Ericson. The mobile phone had some technical problems in its display. The opposite party issued a work order No. SE 310 ATV 12124 claiming Rs. 1,300/- for executing the work and also assured the complainant that the mobile phone would be returned within a period of 14 days after the service. In pursuance to this the complainant approached the opposite party for the mobile phone on 05.06.2010 but the opposite party informed that the hand set had been sent to Ernakulam for service and it will take another 14 days for service and thereafter the hand set will be returned, after completion of service. Believing this the complainant remained calm till 20.06.2010. The complainant again approached the opposite party on 20.06.2010 for the return of the mobile handset but the opposite party further said that the mobile phone had been sent to Chennai for its service and will take another 45 days for repairing and service. On 09.08.2010 the complainant again approached the opposite party for the handset but this time also the opposite party could not return the handset after service. The opposite party again requested for completion of service for 15 more days. The complainant had suffered much inconvenience due to the inaction and defective service of the opposite party. The complainant had suffered much mental agony due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite party. The complainant issued a legal notice on 19.11.2010 demanding the serviced handset, to the said demand the opposite party agreed to surrender the set and the complainant approached the opposite party to receive the same on 03.12.2010. On that day the service boy of the opposite party handed over different parts of the mobile handset which cannot be used further. Since the mobile phone cannot be used as in its original condition the complainant left the office of the opposite party without taking the same. The mobile phone entrusted with the opposite party was working in a good condition except the display problem. The opposite party who is not competent to service the mobile phone had tried to service the same and his lack of knowledge and experience lead to the total damage of the mobile phone worth Rs. 30,000/-. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The loss and mental agony suffered to the complainant cannot be mitigated by way of compensation. Due to the above said act of the opposite party the complainant was forced to purchase a new mobile and on that score also an additional financial burden arose. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party in this case accepted notice from the Forum, but never turned up to contest the case. Hence opposite party remains exparte. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 4 documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P4.
Points to be ascertained are:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
Reliefs and costs.
Points (i) & (ii):- From Ext. P1 it is evident that the complainant had entrusted his Sony Ericson XI Experia Model mobile phone to the opposite party who is the authorized service centre of Sony Ericson on 20.05.2010. As per Ext. P1, the mobile phone had some colour problem and the problem description is mentioned as 'Blue display'. The opposite party has issued the work order No. SE 310 ATV 12124 claiming Rs. 1,300/- as estimate amount for executing the work. Ext. P1 is the work order. But according to the complainant till 04.08.2010 there was no response from the side of the opposite party. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite party he put forward some false excuses. That, at last on 19.11.2010 the complainant sent a legal notice demanding the serviced hand set and that in furtherance of that letter the opposite party agreed to return the handset. Complainant pleads that when he approached the opposite party to receive the same on 03.12.2010, the service boy of the opposite party handed over different parts of the mobile phone which could not be used further. That since the mobile phone cannot be used as in its original condition, the complainant left the office of the opposite party without taking the same. The complainant has produced the copy of legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgement card before this Forum which are marked as Exts. P2 and P3 respectively. Ext. P4 is the original of Ext. P1. The opposite party is the authorized service centre of the Sony Ericson. At the time of entrustment with the opposite party the phone had only display problem which is evident from Ext. P4. According to the complainant, when he went to collect the phone, he was handed over different parts of the hand set which according to the complainant could not be used further. The opposite party has not appeared before the Forum nor has filed their version contending the allegations levelled against them. Hence the pleading of the complainant that the lack of knowledge and experience of opposite party lead to the total damage of the mobile phone stands uncontroverted. Hence we find that due to the poor workmanship of the opposite party the handset became fully damaged. As per the complaint, the price of the mobile phone is Rs. 30,000/-. The same has been mentioned in the advocate notice(Ext. P2) also. Though the opposite party has not objected it, the complainant has not produced the purchase bill to substantiate the age of the phone. Ext. P4 reveals that the same is out of warranty. It is not clear how long the complainant had used the phone. Anyhow, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no denial on the part of the opposite party and since there is no mentioning regarding the year of manufacturing or year of purchase of the phone, even though the complainant has claimed Rs. 30,000/- towards price of the phone, we fix the price of the phone at Rs. 25,000/- after deducting depreciation. It is the duty of the opposite party to handle and service this type of costly items with utmost caution and care. Due to the deficient act of the opposite party the mobile phone has become useless. In this case the disputed phone is still in the custody of the opposite party. Hence there is no need to follow the procedures enumerated under Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. And moreover since the complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite party, the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. From the documents and pleadings, we find that there is deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party and the complainant had sustained mental agony and financial loss and other inconvenience due to the act of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to return the mobile phone to the complainant as in its original condition after clearing the defects or in the alternative shall pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards price of the mobile phone. The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, or else the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of 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 30th day of November 2011.
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 14/2011
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Anoop. S.S
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of Work Order No. SE 310 ATV I2124.
P2 - Advocate notice dated 19.11.2010
P3 - Postal receipt dated 19.11.2010
P3(a) - Acknowledgement card
P4 - Original Work Order No. SE 310 ATV I2124.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
