Saturday, June 19, 2010

DF: Defective Sony Ericsson W580i Mobile

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT PUDUCHERRY

Consumer Complaint No.22/2008

Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008.

G.V. Ravi, IBPL, Near Aurofood Bus Stop, HRC Post, T.C. Balam Main PO, Vanur Taluk.

Complainant

v.

1. Ganesh Electronics, No.261, J.N. Stret, Puducherry – 605 001.

2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A.31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 44.

Opposite parties

BEFORE:

THIRU A. ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

PRESIDENT.

TMT. T. SELLIAMMAL,

MEMBER.

TMT. K.K. RITHA.

MEMBER.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT: In person

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: Opposite parties set ex parte.

O R D E R

(By Tmt. K.K. Ritha, Member.)

This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the “Act”) praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.11,020/- towards value of the mobile phone, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for loss and injury suffered due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for costs of Rs.2,000/-.

2. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

The complainant submits that he purchased a mobile phone on 07.02.2008 for a sum of Rs.7,750/- from the first opposite party. The phone failed to function properly and that the complainant returned it and purchased another one for Rs.11,020/- with an additional cost. The new phone also failed to work properly and it was sent to the service station. Again it failed to function properly. He approached the first opposite party to solve this problem and sent several letters for which there was no reply from the other side. Hence, the complainant requested for refund of Rs.11,020/- being the cost of the mobile phone and for compensation for mental agony.

3. The opposite parties were called absent and set exparte.

4. To substantiate his case, the complainant filed his proof affidavit and marked Exs.C1 to C7.

5. The points for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?

2) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3) To what relief the parties are entitled?

6. POINT No.1:

Under Ex.C3, the complainant purchased the cell phone from the first opposite party for a sum of Rs.11,020/- by returning the cell phone purchased under Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.7,750/-. As per sec.2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, consumer is defined as below:

Sec.2(1)(d): ‘Consumer’ means any person who –

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.”

Since consideration was passed by the complainant to the first opposite party, the complainant is a consumer under the Act.

7. POINT No.2:

On 07.02.2008 under Ex.C1 the complainant purchased a Sony Ericsson mobile phone for a sum of Rs.7,750/- and on 15.02.2008 under Ex.C2 the mobile phone was entrusted to the opposite party for service with problem reported as “set heat problem, charge down problem”. Since the said phone was not working properly, the complainant returned it and purchased a new one for Rs.11,020/- as per Ex.C3 from the first opposite party paying an additional amount. This mobile phone also failed to work properly and it was sent to the service centre as seen from Ex.C5, wherein the complainant received with an objection “not satisfied.” Since the mobile phone failed even after servicing, the complainant sent a letter Ex.C6 dt.20.03.2008 to the first opposite party with a request to solve the problem and Ex.C7 is the acknowledgement for the same.

8. With available documents produced by the complainant and hearing his side as party in person, we have to ascertain whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party and mental agony has been caused to him. It is proved through the proof affidavit and the documents marked that the complainant had purchased Sony Ericsson mobile phone for Rs.7,750/- on 07.02.2008 and on 15.02.2008 it was handed over to the Accel Frontline as per Ex.C2(1) & (2) with problems in it and on 10.03.2008 as per Ex.C3 he purchased a new mobile phone at a cost of Rs.11,020/-. Again by Ex.C5 on 17.03.2008 he took delivery of the mobile phone Model W580i which he bought on 10.03.2008 under Ex.C3 after service from Accel Frontline with a note of ‘not satisfied’. These are the reasons for the complainant to approach this Forum for redresssal.

9. From Ex.C1 we have seen that the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 07.02.2008 and on 15.02.2008, i.e. within a span of one week the same was handed over for rectification with problems in it. Again he returned the mobile phone to the first opposite party and purchased another one with an additional cost on 10.03.2008 for a sum of Rs.11,020/-. Again on 17.03.2008, within a span of one week, the same was delivered to him after service and he received it with dissatisfaction.

10. In the job sheet Ex.C2(2) the problems in the mobile phone is mentioned as “hanging problem and automatic switch off problem. Set heat problem (application error)” and it is also mentioned as “K5501 Full Kit replaced.” From this it is obvious that the mobile phone purchased first on 07.02.2008 under Ex.C1 had inherent defect and so the complainant had to go for another set. The second mobile phone was purchased by him for a higher amount and within a week it was taken delivery from the service unit of the opposite party and the complainant was not satisfied with the service. For the complaint he made on 20.03.2008 Ex.C6, the first opposite party failed to respond.

11. From the incidents that happened from the time of purchased on 07.02.2008 till the complaint was made by the complainant on 20.03.2008, the complainant did not get any remedy from the first opposite party. This is a clear case of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties for not solving the problem faced by the complainant, for having purchased the goods manufactured and sold by the opposite parties. As such, the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the cell phone to the tune of Rs.11,020/- and are liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony caused to him.

Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

12. POINT No.3:

In view of the finding in Point Nos.1 & 2, the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of mobile phone, compensation and costs.

The point is answered accordingly.

13. In the result, the complaint is allowed to the effect that:

i) The opposite parties shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.11,020/- (Rupees eleven thousand and twenty only) towards the cost of the mobile phone;

ii) The complainant is directed to return the mobile phone Sony Ericsson W580i to the first opposite party;

iii) The opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence and deficiency in service on their part; and

iv) The opposite parties shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings.

Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008.

(A. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(T. SELLIAMMAL)

MEMBER

(K.K. RITHA)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

PW1 – Ravi (complainant)

OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESSES: NIL

COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS:

Ex.C1 – 07.02.2008 – Copy of bill for purchase of mobile for Rs.7,750/-.

Ex.C2 – 15.02.2008 – Copy of job sheet.

Ex.C3 – 10.03.2008 – Copy of bill for purchase of mobile for Rs.11,020/-.

Ex.C4 – 10.03.2008 – Copy of warranty certificate.

Ex.C5 – 17.03.2008 – Copy of gate pass cum delivery challan issued by Accel Frontline.

Ex.C6 – 20.03.2008 – Copy of reminder letter by complainant to opposite party.

Ex.C7 – 24.03.2008 – Copy of postal acknowledgement.

OPPOSITE PARTY’S EXHIBITS: NIL

(A. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(T. SELLIAMMAL)

MEMBER

(K.K. RITHA)

MEMBER

Courtesy_

No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer

This Blog Spot is meant for publishing landmark judgments pronounced by the Consumer forum, Consumer State Commission, Consumer National Commission, Supreme Court as we collected from the renowned Dailies, Magazines, etc., so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. As such the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Original Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy/Sources". Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.