Appeal case No. 87/2010. Case: Gaurav Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal Vs 1. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2. N.K.Electronics, 3. B.M. Services, 4. Salora Intl. Ltd.. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Appeal case No. 87/2010 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: Sh.Shabir Singh, advocate |
| Judges | Mr. Pritam Pal, President and Mrs.Neena Sandhu, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act,1986 - Section 15 |
| Judgement Date | March 05, 2010 |
| Court | Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Judgment:
Pritam Pal, President
-
This appeal by complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.810 of 2009 was allowed in the following terms;
Therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the OPs to refund the price amount of the mobile set to the complainant i.e. Rs.10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.550/-. We order accordingly. The OPs are directed to make the entire payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay penal interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum since the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 5.6.2009 till the payment is actually made to the complainant.
-
The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.
-
The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus;
The complainant on 08.03.08 had purchased a Sony Ericsson mobile hand set model W580i EMI no.352430022506862 for Rs.10,000/- from OP NO.2 retail dealer of OP NO.1. On 09.03.08, complainant noticed some defect in the answer key of the said set,so, he approached the customer care centre and handed over the mobile hand set against complaint no. SES08CHD13640 dated 13.03.08. The said mobile set was replaced with a new one on 31.03.08. After few months, the replaced new hand set also developed the same defect as was with earlier one. The complainant again visited B.M. Services customer care centre-OP-3 and deposited the defective mobile hand set with them for repair. After repeated requests, on 05.01.09 the handset was handed over to him after repair, in which the keypad and some other parts were replaced. However, after some days the hand set again developed defect with its speaker and Bluetooth. On 2.02.09, the complainant deposited the defective mobile set with Salora International Ltd., Chandigarh -OP-4 for its repair, which was returned to him on 27.02.09 after repairs. The defect again developed in the repaired hand set and it was to be deposited with OP-4 on 10.03.09. After that the complainant rang up OP-4 many times to know about the status of the said hand set but it never gave any convincing reply to him. The complainant also served a legal notice upon OP No. 1, 2 and 3 but he did not receive any reply regarding the repair of his mobile hand set. As the business of...
To continue reading
Request your trial