By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to pay Rs.11,300/- with 12% interest from 02.11.2013 till realisation being the cost of mobile hand set to the Complainant and also to pay Rs.1,800/- being the conveyance expense Rs.2,500/- as compensation, Rs.650/- with 12% interest being the cost of battery and Rs. 1,500/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a micro max hand set for Rs.11,300/- from 1^st Opposite Party on 02.11.2013. When the set was used, the handset will get over heated, sound disturbed and after two or three seconds the hand set will switch off. The Complainant on 04.11.2013 entrusted the hand set for repair with 1^st Opposite Party offered to rectify the defect on 05.11.2013 and will deliver. On 05.11.2013, the 1^st Opposite Party delivered the mobile stating that the defects are rectified. But on the very next day, the Complaint again appeared. On 06.11.2013, the Complainant approached 1^st Opposite party and 1^st Opposite Party directed the Complainant to the 2^nd Opposite party being the service centre. The Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party 6 times for repair, and every occasions the 2^nd Opposite party gave back the mobile stating that it is repaired. During 3^rd time, the battery was replaced and the Complainant paid Rs.650/- as charge. Still the defect continued. The Complainant later understood that the service of A110 micromax hand set had defects. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite parties and 1^st Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. 2^nd Opposite party not appeared and the 2^nd Opposite Party is set exparte. In the version of 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite party admitted the sale. There are authorised service centre for the service of the mobile. The Complainant not handed over the set to 1^st Opposite Party for repair. When the Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite party, the 1^st Opposite Party directed the Complainant to 2^nd Opposite party. All other allegations against the 1^st Opposite party are denied by 1^st Opposite party.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 and A2. The mobile set is marked as MO1 and additional battery is marked as MO2. 1^st Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and 1^st Opposite party is examined as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice. Ext.A2 is the Job card issued by 2^nd Opposite Party. The case of Complainant is that the 2^nd Opposite Party misguided the complainant and replaced the battery and kept the mobile with 2^nd Opposite Party and returned it to the Complainant stating that it is repaired. It is up to the 2^nd Opposite party to deny all these material allegations against 2^nd Opposite party. But 2^nd Opposite party not appeared before the Forum and contested the case. 1^st Opposite Party is the sales point and admittedly 1^st Opposite party directed the complaint to 2^nd Opposite party. The Complainant approached 2^nd Opposite Party as per direction. 2^nd Opposite party is the authorised service centre of the manufacturing company of MO1 mobile. Even if company is not impleded, the 2^nd Opposite party is also liable to do proper service to the mobile and cure the defect. If 2^nd Opposite Party finds any manufacturing defect, over the set 2^nd Opposite Party must report it and suggest for a replacement. But 2^nd Opposite party failed to do it. As per the complaint and affidavit of complainant, the defect of the mobile is still existed. So the Complainant proved his case according to the Forum. 1^st Opposite party is only a sales point. The Forum found that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of 2^nd Opposite party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 2^nd Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.11,300/- (Rupees Eleven thousand and Three hundred) only to the Complainant with 12% interest from 02.11.2013 till realisation being the cost of the mobile set and also directed to pay Rs.650/- (Rupee Six hundred and fifty) only being the cost of battery. The 2^nd Opposite Party also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Complainant shall return the MO1 mobile set and MO2 Battery to the 2^nd Opposite party on receipt of the above amounts. The 2^nd Opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of July 2015.

Date of Filing:28.10.2014.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Jaya NGO, Bathery.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Akhil. Accountant, 3G Mobile World, Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Retail Invoice. dt:02.11.2013.

A2. Job card.

MO1. Mobile set

MO2. Additional Battery.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties.

Nil.