CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.295/2013
Dated this the 30th day of October 2014.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
ORDER
By Beena Joseph, Member:
The petition was filed on 08.07.2013. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Lenovo A60+ Mobile phone worth Rs.5750/- from the opposite party on 11.03.2013.. The Mobile has got one year warranty as per the Ext.A2 but the mobile became damaged within a short time. And he approached the opposite party for repairing the same but they did not attend his complaint. Hence this petitioner seeking compensation against the opposite party.
Notice issued to both parties which served on them and appeared. Opposite party filed version stating that the Lenovo Company has functioning their own service centre in Calicut at Puthiyara, Kozhikode. Further they alleged that the mobile set of the complainant was broken and became defective. Further opposite party submits that the service center or manufacturer of the mobile were not made a party. Hence complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. More over without getting the certification from the service center Opposite party is not in a position to exchange the handset.
Complainant herein filed affidavit and Examined as PW1, Ext.A1 & A2 marked. Broken mobile produced which marked as MO1 and returned to the complainant. The complainant was cross examined by the opposite party and he admitted that the mobile became defective due to his negligence. The Ext.A1 & A2 clearly shows that Lenovo company has got service center at Calicut. When the matter posted for opposite party’s evidence due to their non appearance opposite party set exaprte.
It is clear from the evidence and documents the mobile became defective due to the negligent handling of the complainant. More over he is hesitant and unwilling to approach the service center. The above defect was not a manufacturing defect or product defect. In the circumstances the above complainant can not be entertained by this Forum. Further it is clear from the records the Lenovo Company has got service center at Calicut, Puthiyara who were not made party to the petition even after specific contention taken by the opposite party. If the complainant intents to get any relief from the Lenovo Company he ought to have made Company as a party in this proceedings.
The allegations of the complainant were baseless. We find that there was no negligence or service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Therefore the above petition is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of October 2014.
Date of filing:08.07.2013.
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Cash bill receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant dtd.11.03.2013.
A2. Warranty Card issued by the opposite party.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.Shaheed Sulfi (Complainant)
MOI
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
