The main legal point established in the judgment is that authorized service stations are obligated to carry out free repairs within the warranty period, as per the conditions of the limited warranty provided by the manufacturer.

ORDER :

Mr. Justice N.A. Britto, President

This appeal is filed by O.P. No. 2 in C.C. No. 62/10 and is directed against order dated 26.10.2012 of the learned North Goa District Forum, by which OP No. 2, inter alia, has been directed to replace the mobile with a new mobile having same features and characteristics.

2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this appeal and for that the parties hereto are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint.

3. The Complainant having read the brochure, purchased a Sony Ericsson Mobile, W-595 model, from OP No. l, the authorized dealer on 3.2.2009 for Rs. 14,100. The Complainant used the same without any problem until 17.9.2009 when the Complainant approached OP No. l, the dealer, with a complaint that the mobile was not displaying call history and the bluetooth was malfunctioning and the said authorized dealer directed the Complainant to OP No. 2, their authorized service station. The Complainant gave the mobile to OP No. 2 on 17.9.2009 at about 10.26 a.m. with the said problems and the mobile was returned to the Complainant on the same day within an hour or so by upgrading the s/w (software).

4. Again, on or about 5.12.2009 the Complainant approached OP No. 2 with a complaint that ear speaker had stopped working and the mobile would not receive signals and display network problem on the screen when infact there was no network problem in that area. This time the mobile remained with OP No. 2 for about 5 days and was returned on 10.12.2009 after replacing half to half FPC and after upgrading s/w and after having found that the same was working fine.

5. Again, on or about 20.12.2009 the mobile started giving more problems like hanging, not responding to speed dialing, etc. According to the Complainant, the OP No. 2 accepted the mobile to its workroom and returned the same to the Complainant informing him that they had upgraded the s/w of the said mobile. This time no job card was given to OP No. 2. These facts are found pleaded by Complainant in para 12 of the complaint.

6. Thereafter, it is the case of the Complainant that the mobile was not functioning properly and while talking the said mobile would suddenly get switched off on its own and the same would not start and become operative on its own after two hours. It is the case of the Complainant that the defects were brought to the notice of the OPs but they had failed and neglected to repair the same or to replace the defective parts and for the last time on 19.3.2010 the Complainant gave the mobile to OP No. 2 for repairs and the OP No. 2 has neither repaired the same nor communicated any other action on their part to the Complainant. The complaint came to be filed on 26.6.2010 for a direction for replacement of the mobile with a new mobile or in the alternative for refund of Rs. 14,100 with interest and compensation.

7. The complaint was not contested by OP No. l, but was contested by OP No. 2. OP No. 2 is a company having its regional office at Panaji and registered office in Chennai and provides warranty repairs to mobile phone instruments manufactured by various companies. OP No. 2 stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile purchased by the Complainant and that the mobile was in good working condition till September 9 and the Complainant had not complained at any time about any manufacturing defect to OP No. 2. OP No. 2 stated that whenever the mobile was brought for servicing to the OP No. 2 as a service provider, they have rectified all the complaints to the satisfaction of the Complainant. OP No. 2 stated that the mobile phone was in working condition and the Complainant was at liberty to collect the same from OP No. 2. OP No. 2 also stated that the Complainant with a view to find out whether there was any manufacturing defect had to produce the mobile phone before the Forum for an expert opinion in terms of Section 13 of the C.P. Act. The OP No. 2 stated that whenever th