O R D E R

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)

                   Complainant Sri. Ravindran, residing at Vattaparambil, Mathilbhagom, Thiruvalla filed the complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:  Complainant is a retired bank employee.  On 09.10.2014 complainant purchased a mobile phone having worth Rs.3,949/- manufactured by the 1^st opposite party through the mobile portal of the 2^nd opposite party.  3^rd opposite party is the service centre and the 4^th opposite party is the courier service who delivered handset to the complainant. 

                   3. During the warranty period itself it became faulty.  Complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party on 01.09.2015 and delivered the defective handset for repair.  3^rd opposite party given a bill of Rs.950/- to the complainant.  But the 3^rd opposite party did not given back the said phone till date.  Complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party several time.  They informed that even though they have sent the handset to the 1^st opposite party company for repairing but till it was not received back.  The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence this complaint for getting the handset along with cost and compensation.

                   4. In this case opposite parties are exparte.

                   5. On the basis of the pleadings in the complaint the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                   6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral evidence of complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2.

                   7. The Point:-  The allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties is that he had purchased a handset from the 1^st opposite party by paying Rs. 3,949/-.  On the warranty period itself it become faulty.  Complainant entrusted the handset to the 3^rd opposite party service centre but till date it is not get repaired.

                   8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 and A2.Ext.A1 is the Flipkart online print dated 09.10.2014 for Rs.4,074/-.  Ext.A2 is the receipt for Rs.950/- issued by 3^rd opposite party.

                   9. On a perusal of Ext.A1, it is seen that complainant had purchased a handset manufactured by the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs.3,949/-.  According to the complainant during the warranty period itself it become faulty and entrusted to the 3^rd opposite party for repairing and they issued a bill of Rs.950/- and not get the mobile set repaired.  From Ext.A2, it is seen that on 01.09.2015 complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party service centre and entrusted the mobile set for repair and they have issued Ext.A2 to the complainant. 

                   10. Since the opposite parties are exparte.  We find no reason to disbelieve the allegation of the complainant and hence the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged.  So we find that act of the opposite party 1 and 3 is a clear deficiency in service and these 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  2^nd opposite party is only an online shopping portal and 4^th opposite party is a courier service, who had delivered the phone to the complainant, these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant.  Hence they are exonerate from their liability. 

                   11. In the result, this complaint is allowed against 1^st and 3^rd opposite party.  3^rd opposite party is directed to return the mobile handset by rectifying the defects within 30 days from the date of receipt of receipt of this order along with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant, failing which complainant is allowed to realise the amount of Rs.3,949/- (Rupees Three Thousand Nine hundred and forty nine only) as the price of the mobile set, cost of Rs.2,000/- and compensation of Rs.3,000/- with 10% interest from the date of the orders.  As the 3^rd opposite party is the authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party they have the liberty to realise the cost and compensation from the 1^st opposite party.

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2016.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                                      K.P. Padmasree,

                                                                                         (Member - I)

Sri. P.Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)  :    (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)                  :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Ravindran. V

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Flipkart online print dated 09.10.2014 for Rs.4,074/-. 

A2 :  Receipt dated 01.09.2015 for Rs.950/- issued by 3^rd opposite party

        to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                            (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Ravindran. V., Vattaparambil, Mathilbhagom, Thiruvalla.

               (2) Karbon Mobiles United Tele links Bangalore Ltd.,
                    #39/13 Appareddypaladaya, Off 7^th Main Hal, 2^nd Stage,

           Indira Nagar, Bangalore – 560 038, Karnataka.

3. w/s Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., No.42/1 $ 43 Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk,

          Bangalore, Karnataka, India – 560 067.

4. City Mobiles, Authorised Service Centre,

            2^nd Floor, Ambanattu Buildings, East of Mitchal Jn.,

            Mavelikkara.

5. First Flight Courier Service, Thiruvalla Branch.
6. The Stock File.