BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 99/2016 Filed on 29.02.2016

ORDER DATED: 30.06.2016

Complainant:

1. The Consumer Vigilance Centre (represented by its General Secretary), Sreekovil, Kodunganoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.
2. Sudheer. R.S, Sandhya, Ashramon Road, Nettayam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.

                             (By Adv. T.R. Omana Kuttan)

Opposite parties:

1. GIONEE Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd., represented by the Managing Director, E-9, Block No. B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Corporative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi-110 044.

2. The Manager, Mobile Shoppee, Main Road, Thakaraparambu, Opp: Karnataka Bank, Fort P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023.

3. The Manager, Ascent Technologies, 1^st Floor, Mulamana Building, Convent Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.

This C.C having been heard on 30.05.2016, the Forum on 30.06.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The case of the 2^nd complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone for Rs. 17,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party.  He purchased Gionee Model S Plus No. IMEI 868702020070670 on 19.11.2015 having warranty coverage of 12 months from the date of purchase.  The complainant tried to use internet, but the usage was not satisfactory and could not download any software.  The complainant approached 2^nd opposite party manager and he informed him that there is some problem with the operating system.  The 2^nd opposite party manager asked the complainant to come back after 2 weeks and after 2 weeks he went to the shop and handed over the same to the 2^nd opposite party manager.  After a few days he was informed by the manager that the problem cannot be rectified and therefore he is ready to replace the phone with another one.  The 2^nd opposite party manager asked the complainant to come with all original documents of the mobile.  The next day complainant handed over all documents to the manager and the customer friendly manager issued a new piece.  Meanwhile an age old person come to the scene and stopped the manager from issuing new piece.  Hence he returned all the documents handed over to him by the 2^nd complainant including defective mobile phone.  On advice of the manager the 2^nd complainant contacted the customer care and they advised him to contact the authorized service centre.  The 2^nd complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party service centre on 10.02.2016.  The 3^rd opposite party received the mobile and after one week the 3^rd opposite party informed the 2^nd complainant that the defect cannot be rectified.  Then the 2^nd complainant requested for refund or replacement, but the 3^rd opposite party refused the demand and asked him to pay Rs. 200/- as inspection charges.  The 2^nd complainant refused to pay the amount as the complaint was during warranty period.  But the 3^rd opposite party did not release the mobile as the inspection charge was not paid, and it is still with them.  Hence the complainants approached this Forum for refund of Rs. 17,000/- with 12% interest per annum from 19.01.2015 till realization along with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and cost of proceedings. 

Notice was issued to opposite parties and after accepting notice opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum.  The opposite parties were set exparte. 

The 2^nd complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P3 marked. 

Issues:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on opposite parties’ side?
2. Whether the 2^nd complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- In this instant case complainant purchased Gionee mobile for Rs. 17,000/- on 19.11.2015 from 1^st opposite party.  The bill is produced as Ext. P1 and the warranty card is Ext. P2.  The internet usage of the mobile was not satisfactory and hence he approached 2^nd opposite party manager.  The complaint was not rectified and the 2^nd opposite party was ready to replace the same first, but on the interference of another person at the shop he returned all the original documents and defective mobile back to the 2^nd complainant.  Then the 2^nd opposite party directed the 2^nd complainant to contact in the company’s customer care centre.  When the 2^nd complainant contact the 3^rd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party after one week informed the 2^nd complainant that the defect of the mobile cannot be rectified and asked for Rs. 200/- as inspection charges.  The request of 2^nd complainant for refund or replacement was also refused by 3^rd opposite party.  When the 2^nd opposite party refused to pay the inspection charges as the phone is having warranty, the 3^rd opposite party did not release the mobile and is still with them.  Here the opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and contest their case.  Meanwhile the 2^nd complainant produced all the documents and on perusing the documents it is seen that the date of purchase of mobile is 19.11.2015 and Ext. P3 is the document which shows that the mobile is defective and it is with the 3^rd opposite party from 10.02.2016 onwards.  The opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and produce any contra evidence.  The Ext. P3 document produced by 2^nd complainant shows that the mobile is with the 3^rd opposite party from 10.02.2016 and the 2^nd complainant used the phone for a short period and the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects.  This shows that there is gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on opposite parties’ side.  Hence we are of the view that complaint is to be allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for all the loss to the 2^nd complainant.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the price of the mobile to the 2^nd complainant along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,500/-. 

In the result, complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs. 17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand only) along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the 2^nd complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 17,000/- shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment along with compensation and cost. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of June 2016.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 99/2016

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of sale bill cash/credit dated 19.11.2015 for Rs. 17,000/-

P2     - Copy of warranty card

P3     - Copy of acknowledgement dated 10.02.2016 given by 3^rd O.P

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb