IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

            DATED THIS THE 30TH  DAY OF September  2015

Present: -        Smt. G.Vasanthakumari, President

Adv. Ravisusha, Member

Adv.M.Praveen Kumar, Member

        CC.No.206/2015

Lajan Kumar                                                                        :                       Complainant

Thondalil Veedu

Thekkevila P.O

Kollam

[By Adv.Chattannoor.N.Jayachandran, Kollam]

V/s

            1.         Gionee Mobiles                                  :                       Opposite parties

                        United Telecom Ltd.18A/19

                        Doddanekundi Industrial Area

                        Mahadevapura Post

                        Bangalore – 560048

                        India

            2.         The Pro Sky Cell

                        Muthoot Chambers

                        Vadayattucotta Road

                        Kollam - 1

ORDER

ADV. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER

            Complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Gionee P2 Model mobile phone for the use of his daughter Athulya on 26/03/2015. The IMEI number of the mobile phone is 865900025713103.  The price of the mobile phone is Rs.5300/- and the 2nd opposite party had issued invoice No.PTB 0001868 dated 26/03/2015 for Rs.5300/- in the name of daughter of the complainant. After a few days from the purchase of the handset, the brightness of the screen of the phone decreased. This fact was immediately brought to the notice of the second opposite party. The second opposite party had checked the phone and altered some settings in the phone, but they were unable to rectify the defect. Complainant’s mobile set become defective and it is reported to opposite parties. But they not yet take any steps to rectify the defects within the warranty period. Said phone having manufacturing defects. Due to the acts of the opposite parties manufacturing and selling defective goods, the complainant had suffered severe mental tension and agony. Hence approached before this Forum for replaced the defective mobile phone with a brand new defective free phone of the same make or to refund its value of Rs.5300/- and to award a compensation of Rs.5000/- and to award cost of the proceedings.

(2)

Opposite parties set exparte.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

 (1).      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

            (2).       Reliefs and costs?

            The evidence in this case consists of only documentary evidence Ext.P1.

The Points:-Opposite parties received notice from this Forum. But the opposite parties not yet appeared so far. Hence the opposite parties were declared as exparte. The complainant filed chief affidavit and one document produced (bill) marked as Ext.P1. Since the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence, on a perusal of complaint, chief affidavit and Ext.P1, we are constrained to believe the complainant’s evidence. We are of the view that the mobile set become faulty in several times within the warranty period and not cure the defects of the mobile set by opposite parties amounts to gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is entitled to get relief.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to replace the defective mobile phone with new one of same features or to refund its value of Rs.5300/- to the complainant. Opposite parties again directed to give Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.1000/- as cost to the proceedings. Order must be complied with within 30 days of date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 30th day of September 2015.                                                                                      

G.VASANTHAKUMARI:Sd/-

ADV.RAVISUSHA: Sd/-

ADV.M.PRAVEENKUMAR:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent

I N D E X

Ext.P.1:-Bill dated 26/03/2015