The Navhind Times Archive

Compensation in mobile damage case

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – North Goa has directed the mobile company and a service centre to pay compensation of Rs15,000 and cost of Rs 5,000 to the complainant in a mobile damage case.

Shibili Hameed from Porvorim had complained that he purchased Asus mobile model no.Z002 (A601 CG) through Flipkart on June 29, 2015 for Rs15,049. After purchase of the mobile within two months, the same went dead and did not restart. As such he gave the said handset for repairs with the authorized service centre at Tonca.

In the complaint it was said that at the time of giving mobile at the service centre, there was no physical damage to the mobile but however, when the complainant went to collect the same, it was noticed that the handset was damaged that is rear body and front glass. The service centre told him that the handset was not repaired and that they are closing the present service centre and they shall open new service centre. Accordingly, the handset was returned to the complainant with instructions to give the same for repairs to the new service centre. They also endorsed the damage on the job sheet.

Hameed gave the mobile for repairs with new authorized service station on November 30, 2015 but inspite of his several emails to Asus Technology – Mumbai, the company and service centre failed to repair the cell so also the damages caused to the mobile handset while the same was given for repairs. He made several visits at the service centre but neither the company nor the service centre reverted back to the complainant and have failed to repair and return the mobile. Therefore, he approached the Forum.

On the other hand, the company filed reply and denied that the said mobile is still lying with them. They further stated that the complainant had approached the service centre to get rectified some problem with the phone. He had given the said phone for repairs and as spares were not available with them at the time and since that branch was closing down, they returned the phone as it is.

The Forum said, “The documents produced by the complainant clearly prove his case. The company and service centre itself failed to repair the said mobile and return it back to Shibili Hameed. This shows the deficiency in service on their part. The mobile was damaged by the service centre. They should have repaired the same and returned the mobile to the complainant. If the spare parts are not available or the repairing is beyond their capacity, either they should have replaced the mobile with a new one or should have refunded the amount but they failed to do so.”

The Forum said that they are of the opinion that there is deficiency in the service committed by the company and the service centre and the complainant faced mental tension and hardship because of the negligent and irresponsible behavior of the company and the service centre.

The Forum in its order said, “The company and the service centre are jointly and severally directed to repair the said mobile and to replace the cover of the said mobile which was damaged by the service centre within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. The company and the service centre are also jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs15,000 and cost of Rs 5,000 to the complainant.”

Share this article if you wish