Disposed on: 29-02-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2217/2011
DATED THIS THE 29th FEBRUARY 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
M.R.Kiran S/o. Gajanana Hegde,
Aged about 25 years,
No.49, 2nd cross, RK Layout
BSK 2nd stage, Bangalore - 70
V/s
Opposite parties: -
1. The Manager, Sony Ericsson,
Service point, No.652, 11th main,
4th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore
2. The Manager,
Universal Telecommunications,
India Private Ltd, No.281,
Opp. HDFC Bank,
5th block, Kathriguppe junction,
BSK 3rd Stage, Bangalore-85
O R D E R
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER.
The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against Op’s are that he has purchased a Sony Ericsson handset through Op 2 on 30/7/2011model Sony E16i, IMEI no. 357737042394862 by paying Rs. 10,299/- by way of cash. Op 2 is retailer of Op 1. After lapse of 2 months of purchase, the touch screen board of the set was not working. Immediately he contacted Op1 and handed over the hand set on 4/11/2011. After that they were not replied properly, but replied to emails sent by the complainant saying that the problem will be solved shortly. They even sent reference no’s of complainant bearing 91759952 and 91776364. The complainant even sent complaint through the post, but Ops did not replied to it. Op 1 gave one mobile no of manager named Mr. Parthiv when the complainant visited to Op 1 service centre, but he never pickup the phone calls. The defective handset is still retained by the Op 1 and caused deficiency in service by neither returned the handset and nor replied to that. Hence, the complainant approached this forum seeking direction to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.10,299/-, direction to grant Rs.40,000/-towards deficiency in service, Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony, hardship.
2. Notice sent to Op 1 and 2 only was duly served on Ops and they were absent on the date of appearance. Hence, OPs were placed exparte.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of tax invoice, and a copy of job sheet issued by Op1. We have heard the counsel for complainant and perused the records.
4. Complainant had purchased a mobile hand set with Op 2 who is dealer. Op 2 had issued receipt and short span from the date of purchase complainant faced problems like disfunctioning of touch screen in the said hand set and the same has been reported to Op 1. Accordingly the mobile set has been given to the customer service centre who is Op 1 for repair on 4/11/2011 which was within the warranty period. Op 1 has issued job card to prove that it is given for repair. The complainant made several e-mail correspondences with the Op 1 who has replied and the complaint reference no’s has given to the complainant for further correspondence. It shows that the problem with the mobile set was known and retained the said set by him was well aware. Inspite of it, Op-1 has neglected to return his hand set even after several requests.
5. Though the complainant highlighted the problem he was facing, in the issued job sheet, Op 1has also mentioned that the touch screen problem in the mobile. It is not fair to retain the mobile set simply by Op 1, either he should rectify and return it or he should replace the mobile set if in case the defect can not be rectified since it is within the warranty period. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of op 1.
6. Op 2 has sold the handset to the complainant, he should reply to the notice issued by the complainant. But at the beginning of the dispute, Op 2 directed to rectify the mobile through the authorized service centre i.e Op 1. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the mobile set to op1 and Op 1 retained it without returning the set to the complainant. Since, Op 1 is only a service centre, taken the defective hand set to repair, but Op2 is authorized dealer of company, it was his duty to take responsibility to repair it in such a condition that sold product should satisfy the customer. He did not taken care regarding the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Op 2.
7. The complainant produced the receipt issued by Op 2 to prove that he had purchased the said mobile set by paying Rs.9,000/- but in the complaint the complainant has submitted that he paid Rs. 10, 299/- with VAT. Out of it the insurance of 3% was deducted and received Rs.9,000/- only by way of cash. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 9,000/- not Rs.10,299/-
8. Therefore we find deficiency in the service of OPs and therefore are liable to answer to the short coming caused by them. Though the notices were served on Op’s, they never turned up and never taken defence by filing any objection on their behalf. There is no rebuttance to disbelieve the allegations of complainant. Complainant as stated above has proved the defect in the mobile hand set, he is entitled for relief. We find that, the complaint is to be allowed, accordingly and we pass the following order;
O R D E R
Complaint is allowed.
Ops are jointly and severally liable to return the rectified hand set with 4 months extended warranty within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Failing which, Op’s are jointly and severally liable to refund cost of mobile Rs.9,000/- to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Ops are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation.
Failing which, Op’s shall pay interest @ 10% from the date of 1st repair i.e from 4/11/2011 to till the realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 29th February 2012.
Member President
Complaint filed on: 07-12-2011
Disposed on: 29-02-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2217/2011
DATED THIS THE 29th FEBRUARY 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
M.R.Kiran S/o. Gajanana Hegde,
Aged about 25 years,
No.49, 2nd cross, RK Layout
BSK 2nd stage, Bangalore - 70
V/s
Opposite parties: -
1. The Manager, Sony Ericsson,
Service point, No.652, 11th main,
4th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore
2. The Manager,
Universal Telecommunications,
India Private Ltd, No.281,
Opp. HDFC Bank,
5th block, Kathriguppe junction,
BSK 3rd Stage, Bangalore-85
O R D E R
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER.
The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against Op’s are that he has purchased a Sony Ericsson handset through Op 2 on 30/7/2011model Sony E16i, IMEI no. 357737042394862 by paying Rs. 10,299/- by way of cash. Op 2 is retailer of Op 1. After lapse of 2 months of purchase, the touch screen board of the set was not working. Immediately he contacted Op1 and handed over the hand set on 4/11/2011. After that they were not replied properly, but replied to emails sent by the complainant saying that the problem will be solved shortly. They even sent reference no’s of complainant bearing 91759952 and 91776364. The complainant even sent complaint through the post, but Ops did not replied to it. Op 1 gave one mobile no of manager named Mr. Parthiv when the complainant visited to Op 1 service centre, but he never pickup the phone calls. The defective handset is still retained by the Op 1 and caused deficiency in service by neither returned the handset and nor replied to that. Hence, the complainant approached this forum seeking direction to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.10,299/-, direction to grant Rs.40,000/-towards deficiency in service, Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony, hardship.
2. Notice sent to Op 1 and 2 only was duly served on Ops and they were absent on the date of appearance. Hence, OPs were placed exparte.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of tax invoice, and a copy of job sheet issued by Op1. We have heard the counsel for complainant and perused the records.
4. Complainant had purchased a mobile hand set with Op 2 who is dealer. Op 2 had issued receipt and short span from the date of purchase complainant faced problems like disfunctioning of touch screen in the said hand set and the same has been reported to Op 1. Accordingly the mobile set has been given to the customer service centre who is Op 1 for repair on 4/11/2011 which was within the warranty period. Op 1 has issued job card to prove that it is given for repair. The complainant made several e-mail correspondences with the Op 1 who has replied and the complaint reference no’s has given to the complainant for further correspondence. It shows that the problem with the mobile set was known and retained the said set by him was well aware. Inspite of it, Op-1 has neglected to return his hand set even after several requests.
5. Though the complainant highlighted the problem he was facing, in the issued job sheet, Op 1has also mentioned that the touch screen problem in the mobile. It is not fair to retain the mobile set simply by Op 1, either he should rectify and return it or he should replace the mobile set if in case the defect can not be rectified since it is within the warranty period. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of op 1.
6. Op 2 has sold the handset to the complainant, he should reply to the notice issued by the complainant. But at the beginning of the dispute, Op 2 directed to rectify the mobile through the authorized service centre i.e Op 1. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the mobile set to op1 and Op 1 retained it without returning the set to the complainant. Since, Op 1 is only a service centre, taken the defective hand set to repair, but Op2 is authorized dealer of company, it was his duty to take responsibility to repair it in such a condition that sold product should satisfy the customer. He did not taken care regarding the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Op 2.
7. The complainant produced the receipt issued by Op 2 to prove that he had purchased the said mobile set by paying Rs.9,000/- but in the complaint the complainant has submitted that he paid Rs. 10, 299/- with VAT. Out of it the insurance of 3% was deducted and received Rs.9,000/- only by way of cash. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 9,000/- not Rs.10,299/-
8. Therefore we find deficiency in the service of OPs and therefore are liable to answer to the short coming caused by them. Though the notices were served on Op’s, they never turned up and never taken defence by filing any objection on their behalf. There is no rebuttance to disbelieve the allegations of complainant. Complainant as stated above has proved the defect in the mobile hand set, he is entitled for relief. We find that, the complaint is to be allowed, accordingly and we pass the following order;
O R D E R
Complaint is allowed.
Ops are jointly and severally liable to return the rectified hand set with 4 months extended warranty within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Failing which, Op’s are jointly and severally liable to refund cost of mobile Rs.9,000/- to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Ops are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation.
Failing which, Op’s shall pay interest @ 10% from the date of 1st repair i.e from 4/11/2011 to till the realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 29th February 2012.
Member President
Complaint filed on: 07-12-2011
