KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 230/2009 JUDGMENT DATED:11-06-2010 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1.M/s Reliance Infocomm Ltd., “A” Block 1st Floor, Dehruubai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai – 400 710. : APPELLANTS 2.M/s Reliance Web World, Metro Complex, Head Post OfficeRoad, Palakkad – 678 001. (By Adv: Sri.George Cherian Karippapparambil) Vs. Mr.A.Kesavan, S/o late S.Arumughan, Kelappan Nivas, Anthirathodi, : RESPONDENT Edathara, Palakkad. (By Adv: Sri.Dhananjayan) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.49/07 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.19,400/- and Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the mobile handset of Samsung from the opposite parties/Reliance Infocomm Ltd. On 3/10/2003 on payment of advance of Rs.5001/- and monthly instalment of Rs.400/- in 36 months. On 25/4/2006 and on subsequent dates he approached the opposite party several times to get the battery of the handset repaired. As directed by them he approached the Samsung Service Centre who demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- for repairing and replacement of the battery. Hence he has sought for return of the amount paid and compensation. 3. In the version filed the opposite parties have contended that the manufacturer is Samsung Electronics and that the manufacturer should be responsible and that the complainant is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. The allegations are denied. 4. The evidence adduced consisting of the proof affidavits of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A7 and MO1. The Forum has noted that the opposite parties have not filed proof affidavit or adduced evidence. 5. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant it is about 3 years subsequent to the purchase of the mobile set that the complainant has sought for getting the defects repaired with respect to the battery. It is his case that the service centre of the Samsung demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- for replacement of the battery and repairs. Along with MO1 the warranty card is also produced from wherein it can be seen that the warranty extends for the period of 12 months except for the battery and for the battery the period is 6 months. 6. Although not specifically pleaded we find that the opposite parties cannot be held liable for the alleged defect as the alleged manufacturing defect is subsequent to the warranty period and even according to the complainant the manufacturer had demanded payment for getting the battery replaced. The decision cited by the counsel for the respondent/complainant ie Deepak Kumar Vs. Sony Ericson Mobile Communication AB Company and Another 2010 (1) CPR 98 has no relevance as the facts situation therein is entirely different. 7. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The office will forward the LCR and the MO1 back to the Forum. If the complainant applies the MO can be released to him. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL. | 
