IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 31st day of October, 2017
Filed on 17.05. 2017
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.125/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. K.Y. Yesodharan 1. The Managing Director
Devayani Bhavanam Consulting Rooms (p) Ltd
Eruva West House No. 37/3 Old Rajendra Nagar
Kareelkulangara P.O Near Water Tank, Central Delhi
Near Spinning Mill India- 110060
Kerala
2. Service Manager
Karbonn
Pulimootil Trade Centre
Mullackal, Alappuzha.
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone through flipkart on 5/12/16. The product became defective after 2 months from the date of purchase. The complainant entrusted the phone to the 2nd opposite party on 8/3/17 but the 2nd opposite party failed to rectify the defects. Even though the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party many times they have not returned mobile phone so far. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking refund of price of the phone together with compensation and cost.
2. Notice was served the opposite parties, 1st opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. 2nd opposite party did not appear before Forum and 2nd opposite party was set expartie.
3. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
1st opposite party is carrying on business of sales of goods manufactured by others. 1st opposite party is not engaged in sale of any goods manufactured or produce by its own. Complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not arrayed the manufacturer as a party to the complaint. 1st Opposite party is not the manufacturer but an online reseller only and the products sold by 1st opposite party carries warranty issued/provided by the respective manufacturers against manufacturing defects subject to the terms & conditions determined by the manufacturers only.
That it is most respectfully submitted that any grievances of the complainant are only against the manufacturer and its authorized service centre i.e. 2nd opposite aprty for not providing after sale services and the 1st opposite party has no role to play in offering or providing after sale services to the customers. Hence it is submitted that the present complaint should have been against the manufacturer and the authorized service centre appointed by the manufacturer and the complainant has been wrong in arraying the 1st opposite party in the present complaint. That it is most respectfully submitted that though the grievance of the complainant is with regard to manufacturing defect in the product, the complainant has failed to implead the manufacturer as an opposite party in present complaint. The manufacturer in the present complaint along with its authorized service centre. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary party. It is further submitted that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. The 1st opposite party has no role to play in providing after sale service as the same is the sole responsibility of the manufacturer and its authorized service centre, as the case may be under the manufacturer’s warranty clause. Hence the 1st opposite party is not liable for providing refund/ replacement of the mobile phone or paying any compensation to the Complainant as alleged in the complaint and therefore the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 were marked.
5. Considering the allegations of the complainant the forum has raised the following issues.
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
6. Issues:-
The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone for an amount of Rs. 4999/- through the 1st opposite party on 5/12/16. The product has one year warranty. The product became defective during the warranty period and entrusted to the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre on 8/3/17. According to the complainant he entrusted the phone to the 2nd opposite party but the phone has not been returned so far and the phone is with the 2nd opposite party.
7. Inspite of repeated request and reminders the 2nd opposite party failed to rectify the defect or to replace the product. Even though notice was served to the 2nd opposite party they did not appear before the Forum. Since the 2nd opposite party failed to rectify the defect of the phone they have committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the relief. On scanning the entire evidence we can’t see any deficiency on the part of the 1st opposite party. So we can’t held 1st opposite party liable for any deficiency in service.
In the result the complaint is to be allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs. 4999/- (Rupees Four thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees thousand only) towards compensation. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 4,999/- shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me an pronounced
in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.Y.Yesodharan. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of job sheet dtd. 8-3-2017
Ext.A2 - Copy of retail invoice dtd . 5-12 16
Ext.A3 - Copy of warranty card
Ext.A4 - Copy of the e-mail
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy // By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
