KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 549/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 22.05.2019

(Against the Order in C.C. 556/2016 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT : 

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RANJIT. R                                                 : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                             : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main 80 feet Road, 3^rd block, Koromongala, Industrial Layout, Bangalore-560 034.

                         (By Adv. Awanish Kumar & Shiby. P.P)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Dr. Harilal. S.L, Shibulal Bhavan, Aruvikkarakonam, Panthalacode P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. CEO, Motorola India, Motorola Excellence Centre, 415/2, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Sector-14, Gurgaon-Haryana-122 001.

3. Motorola Authorized Service Centre, rep. by M/s Smart Communications, T.C 26/15(11), Ground Floor, Annas Arcade, Spencer Junction, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

Appellant is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 556/2016 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram.  1^st respondent is the complainant.  Appeal is against the order directing the opposite parties to repair the handset of the complainant free of cost, if it is not possible refund   Rs. 19,999/- to the complainant with 6% interest from the date of order and    Rs. 2,000/- as compensation.

2.  Case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Moto X Play mobile handset manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and sold by 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 19,999/-.  This was a dual sim phone.  At first he was using only a single sim.  When he tried to use another sim he found it difficult to use.  So he approached the 3^rd opposite party to get it rectified.  They found that the second sim slot was defective.  Since this defect happened during the warranty period, he insisted for curing the defect free of cost as per warranty, but the opposite parties were reluctant to do so.  Hence the complaint. 

3.  All the opposite parties were exparte before the district forum.  In order to prove his case complainant filed affidavit and produced two documents which were marked as Ext. P1 and P2.  On the basis of the evidences adduced by the complainant the forum below allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order. 

4.  The 2^nd opposite party is the appellant in this appeal.  The 1^st respondent/complainant admitted before us that the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties/2^nd and 3^rd respondents already complied the order of the forum and he has received the entire amount as per the order.  The appellant/2^nd opposite party was unnecessarily dragged the complainant for a further litigation.  As a doctor, complainant has no time to waste. 

5.  We have gone through the finding of the lower forum and found that the order passed by the lower forum is fair and reasonable.  There is no need to remand the case for further litigation. 

6.  At this juncture we find that there is no reason to set aside the order of the lower forum.  Respondents 2 & 3 have already complied the order. 

In the result, appeal is dismissed.  Order passed by the district forum in C.C. No. 556/2016 is confirmed. 

The appellant is permitted to get release of the amount deposited by him at the time of filing the appeal and also permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by him before the forum for granting stay, on proper application.

T.S.P. MOOSATH    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb