BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM UTTAR KANNADA, AT KARWAR Complaint Case No. CC/46/2017 1. Shri Mukund Channabasappa Maale Age: 18 Years, R/o: Geraal, Beesgod, Yellapur ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Mohan Co Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura road, New Delhi 2. E-Bay India Pvt. Ltd. 14th Floor, Naarta Block, Artech Park, Western Express Higway, Goregaon East Mumbai 400063 3. Sneha Vyaas Flat No.302, Laxmi Legend, Beside Baal Sai Baba Aashram, Gagan Mahal, Hyderabad 4. Upadhyaya Electronics Device Sony Authorized Service Center, Door No.7, 1st Floor, M.K Complex, Mathura Colony, Kusugal road, Hubli ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIMALLAPPA MALLAPPA KUMBAR PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri.Raju Namdev Metri MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 12 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement ORDER DELIVERED BY SHRI. G. M. KUMBAR, HON?BLE PRESIDENT This complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of C.P.Act seeking direction against opposite parties (herein after referred to as OPs) for payment of Rs.12,861/- towards mobile purchase amount or replacement, Rs.40,000/- towards cost and charges and also to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony from the OPs on the allegations of deficiency in service. 2) Brief facts of the case are as hereunder:- The complainant contended that on 23/02/2017 he purchased Sony Mobile through online from Sneha Vyas, Hyderabad i.e. OP No.3 by paying Rs.12,861/- and that mobile did not work properly and same is informed to OP No.3 and as per advice of OP No.3, on 2/3/2017 he sent the mobile set along with receipt through courier. After few days the OP-3 returned the mobile and assured that the said mobile got repaired and after a week of its using, the same problem was occurred. Again he brought it to the notice to the OP No.3 and he again on 20/04/2017 sent the mobile set. But the OP No.3 did not repair the same and as per the instruction of OP No.3 he approached OP No.4 i.e. Upadhyaya authorized Sony Service Centre, Hubli, for repair. After verification, OP No.4 informed that the warranty period is over and there is no mention of I.M.E.I Number and also the said mobile hand set is old one and the replacement charges will be Rs.9,400/-. But in spite of several requests, OP No.3 did not repair nor replace the mobile set. Hence this complaint. 3. In response to the notice the OP No.1 appeared. While OP No.2 to 4 are remained absent despite service of notice. Hence, they are placed exparte. 4. The OP-1 filed written version contending that OP No.1 has no clue about the issue faced by complainant with respect to mobile phone allegedly purchased by the complainant and he has not produced copy of invoice, Serial/IMEI number and details of the said mobile. After receipt of the notice of this complaint, OP No.1 made detailed enquiry, but no details were traced and even complainant has not produced job sheet to prove that he has contacted OPs for any service. Whenever customer approaches the OPs for service request, a job sheet would be prepared by the Service Engineer, wherein the details of defects will be noted and customer will sign the job sheet. But the complainant has not produced any such job sheet. After receiving the notice the OPs sent a letter to complainant on 24/7/2017 intimating that there are no records pertaining to the service history of mobile. But the complainant has not furnished any records. Therefore in the absence of any such records, the OPs are not in a position to diagnose the exact issue. The alleged mobile in the name of complainant was not brought to the service centre at any time. If the complainant brings the said mobile for inspection to service centre, OPs are ready to provide required service. But there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence complaint be dismissed. During the course of enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence as CW-1 and produced documents. The OP No.1 filed affidavit evidence of Executive officer as RW-1 and produced documents. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record. The following points arise for our consideration- Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs? If so, what relief the complainant is entitled for? What order? Our findings on the above points are as hereunder:- In affirmative. Partly in affirmative. As per final order for the following: R E A S O N S Point No.1 & 2: In order to prove deficiency of service on the part of OPs, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated facts of the case, deficiency in service on the part of OPs and also about claim. The complainant also produced copies of several documents regarding online purchase of mobile from OP No.3 through OP No.2 for Rs.12,861/- on 23/2/2017. The documents produced by complainant clearly go to show that the OP No.3 warrants the production to be free from defects in design, material and workmanship commencing from the time of purchase of mobile handset for a period of 12 months. The complainant has produced copies of email correspondence with OP No. 2 & 3 regarding defect in the handset, return of handset after alleged repair to the complainant, change of IMEI number and handset. The correspondence goes to show that there is serious error on the part of OP No.3 as she changed order confirmation copy and IMEI details for which the complainant wrote a letter. The complainant also produced courier service receipts. The correspondence clearly go to show that the complainant made several request to OP No.3 to send a new handset or to refund the money, since the mobile was found defective inspite of repair. The OP No.2 to 4 have remained exparte and not denied the case of complainant by appearing before Forum. The OP No.1 has filed affidavit evidence of its executive by denying the claim of complainant. It is true that job sheet will be prepared by Service Engineer after receiving the defective handset. But in this case the mobile was sent through courier service to the address of OP No.3 at Hyderabad. The complainant is residing at remote village in Yellapur Taluk of Karwar District. It is the duty of service engineer i.e. OP No.3 to send the job sheet to the complainant after receiving the mobile. But unfortunately the OP No.3 did not prepare the job sheet. Even the OP No.3 has retained original documents sent by complainant till today. She has given vague reply to the complainant during email correspondence. It is clear from the written version and affidavit of OP No.1 that OP No.1 did not enquire OP No.3 regarding correspondence by the complainant and also about defects of the mobile. The correspondence letters and other documents produced by the complainant clearly go to show that the mobile was sent through courier to OP No.3, Service Engineer and that OP No.3 returned the mobile as it is, without necessary repair and that the mobile was not replaced nor the amount was refunded to the complainant. Lastly OP No.3 sent another old mobile of which the warranty period was expired. In spite of knowledge the OPs have failed to provide satisfactory service to the customer, as such there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Since the OPs have committed deficiency in service, they are jointly liable to replace old mobile and to handover new handset. If for any reason the OPs are unable to give new handset of same price and quality, they are liable to refund sum of Rs.12,861/- with interest @10%p.a. from the date of complaint. The OPs are also liable to pay Rs.2,500/- towards compensation and cost. According we answer point no.1 in affirmative and point no.2 partly in affirmative. Point No.3:- In view of the findings on point no.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following:? -: O R D E R :- The complaint filed U/Sec.12 of C.P.Act is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay to the complainant Rs.12,861/-towards mobile purchase amount with interest @10% p.a. from date of complaint i.e. 29/06/2017 till realization. The OPs are also directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards compensation and cost. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The copies of this order shall be supplied to both the parties on free of cost. (Dictated to the stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 12/01/2018) SD/- SD/- (Shri. Raju N. Metri) (Shri. G.M. Kumbar) Member Hon?ble President ANNEXURE in CC.No.46/2017 Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. CW-1 ?? Complainant Mukund Channabasappa Maale Documents marked on behalf of the complainant. NIL Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs RW-1 ?? Smt. Priyank Chauhan, Executive Documents marked on behalf of the OPs SD/- SD/- (Shri. Raju N. Metri) (Shri. G.M. Kumbar) Member Hon?ble President [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIMALLAPPA MALLAPPA KUMBAR] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri.Raju Namdev Metri] MEMBER