DOF.4.1.2010

DOO.17.1.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 17^th  day of January 2011

OP.NO.6/2010

Rajesh,

Puthiya Puyrayil House,

V.P.Vayal, P.O.Thana, Kannur                                         Complainant

1.  Pratham Telecom India Pvt.Ltd.,

    Gala No.109B, Building No.26A, First floor,

    Aihant Complex,

    Puna Village, Near Kopar Bus stop,

    Bhiwsandi Dist. Thane.                                             Opposite parties

 2.The Manger, M/s.Adonis Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,

    Zain Complex,

    Chettipeedika,

    P.O.Pallikkunnu, Kannur Dist.

    (Rep. by Adv.C.V.Narayanan)

                                      O R D E R

Smt.M.D.Jessy, Member

          This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order to directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of `10,000 as compensation and `10,000 as cost of these proceedings together with a new mobile phone.

          The case of the complainant in brief are as follows: The complainant purchased a BLEU 476 mobile phone from M/s. Mega Marketing on 23.2.09 by paying `6900 as per invoice under 1466. The said mobile phone was having a warranty of one year. Due to board compliant complainant entrusted the same to 2^nd opposite party, who is an authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party. After examining the set 2^nd opposite party suggested that board of the set was complaint, it wouldbe rectified with in two weeks. So complainant entrusted the set to 2^nd opposite party’s  shop. Afterwards many times complainant contacted the opposite party as per their direction yet opposite party could not deliver the set. Even though complainant contacted many times opposite party, they could not rectify the defect as assured. So complainant being engaged in the real estate business, he had suffered much due to the lack of mobile handset. The set is still with 2^nd opposite party. Hence this complaint filed.

          After receiving the complaint Forum sent notices to opposite parties. 2^nd opposite party filed their version contending that 2^nd opposite party is the proprietor of Ashwini Electronics Pvt. Ltd., and is the service franchisee of Adonis Electronics. Adonis Electronics takes up the repair work of certain house hold electronic item of different companies. For this purpose Adonis Electronics usually take up the repair work of the articles and the concerned companies will provide required spare parts. Here in this case if the article is repairable, this opposite party will make it repaired and will dispatch the bill to Adonis electronics and if not the customer will be informed to take back and approach the trader where from he had purchased the article. In this case 2^nd opposite party found out the fault as the pointed circuit board was damaged and which should be replaced, but printed circuit board was not provided by the Patham Telecom India Pvt.Ltd, the 1^st opposite party who is the manufacturing company. More over complainant is not a consumer of 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party also stated that complainant purchased the cell phone set from M/s.Mega Marketing but Mega Marketing has not been made a party to this complaint. 2^nd opposite party had neither sold mobile BLEU 476X handset to the complainant nor was in receipt of any amount from hi. The complainant came to the shop of 2^nd opposite party on 30.11.09 enquiring about the repair a receipt issued at the time by 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party admitted that mobile handset BLEU 476X is with him. Since Mega Marketing has not been made as party this complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis joinder of necessary party.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite  

              parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

  4. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of chief affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A3 marked.

Issue No.1

          It is an admitted case that complainant purchased BLEU 476X mobile phone from M/s. Mega Marketing on 23.2.09 by paying `6900 as per invoice under 1466.Ext.A1 warranty card issued on behalf of 1st opposite party. Complainant pleads that 1`st opposite party is the importer and distributor of the said mobile BLEU 476 X set in India. 2^nd opposite party also admits that 1^st  opposite party is the distributor of the BLEU 476 X handset in India. Hence complainant who purchased a BLEU 476 X mobile phone from M/s. Mega Marketing on 23.2.09 by paying `6900 is definitely come under the purview of a consumer as defined  under section 2(1)(d) of the consumer protection Act. Hence issue No1 is found in favour of complainant.

Issue No.2 to 4

          The case of the complainant is that the damaged set ‘BLEU 476X’ was handed over to 2^nd opposite party alleging that they are the authroised service centre of 1^st opposite party. But 2^nd opposite party claims that they  are undertaking the repair work of electronics goods of various companies and the bill amount is paid by concerned company. In this case 2^nd opposite party found that printed circuit board was damaged, which should be replaced, but printed circuit board was not provided by the Prathom Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., 1^st opposite party who is the manufacturing company. So 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant to take back the damaged set. But the complainant has not taken the set back. During cross examination to a question “parts CÃm-¯-Xp-sIm­v dn¸-bÀ sN¿m-ª-sX-¶pT km[-\T \n§Ä Xn-cn-s¨-Sp-¡-W-sa-¶p Bh-i-y-s¸-«n-«pT \n§Ä Xncn-s¨-Sp-¡m-¯-XmWv” put to the complaint he answered “ icn-bmWvv”. More over there is no consumer relation ship between 2^nd opposite party and complainant because he has admitted in cross examination that “ 2^nd opposite party Ft¶mSv ]WT Bh-i-y-s¸-«n-«n-Ã. Rm³ ]WT sImSp-¡m-sa¶v 2--þmT F-XnÀI-£n-tbmSv hmKvZm-\T sNbvXn-«nÔ. Complainant has also not proved the relationship of opposite parties 1 and 2. Ext.A3 shows that complainant entrusted the set for rectification before 2^nd opposite party. So we found there is no deficiency on the part of 2^nd opposite party. But the set is still with 2^nd opposite arty. Complainant is at liberty to take back the set from 2^nd opposite party.

          Ext.A1 is the warranty card of 1^st opposite party who is the manufacturing company which shows that the set is guaranteed for one year. Complainant purchased the cell phone set from M/s.Mega Marketing but Mega Marketing has not been made a party to this complaint. Complainant could not establish his case with support of evidence. Complainant has not made any attempt to prove that there is manufacturing defect for the set so as to make 1^st opposite party liable.

          In the light of the above discussion we find that the complainant failed to establish his case. Hence the issues 2 to 4 are found against complainant.         

            In the result, complaint is dismissed and complainant is at liberty to take back the set from 2^nd opposite party.

                Sd/-                                    Sd/-                        Sd/-

          President                               Member                  Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Warranty card issued by Mega Marketing

A2.Invoice dt 23.2.09 issued by Mega Marketing

A3.Service bill issued by 2^nd OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                          Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.