BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 7^th day of February 2018.

                                                                                                Filed on : 07.07.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                              President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                            Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                  Member.

                        C.C.No. 274/2017

                                                      O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1. The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant had purchased a Gionee Mobile phone model S6 S(3GB+ 32 GB) LATTE Gold for his personal use from the 1^st opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the 2^nd opposite party – Gionee India Pvt. Ltd., on 24.01.2017 for an amount of Rs.16,000/-. At the time of its purchase, the 1^st opposite party-dealer assured the complainant that the mobile phone have some particular standard quality style and model. The complainant stated in his complaint from the very beginning of the purchase of the mobile phone, it was not functioning properly, that the mobile phone became hanged while ‘switch on’ and he also noticed various problems like overheating, fast draining and application error etc.. in the gadget. The complainant informed the 1^st opposite party about the above defects of the mobile phone on 27.01.2017. The 1^st opposite party ignored the complaint reported by the complainant. Again the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party with a request to rectify the defects and the 1^st opposite party directed the complainant to approach their authorized service centre. As per their direction the complainant approached the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party and entrusted the defective handset on 30.07.2017. But they failed to rectify the defects of the mobile handset and handed over the phone to the complainant.  Again the phone became defunct and he approached the authorized service centre on 10.02.2017. But the service centre of the opposite party did not do anything to cure the defect of the disputed mobile handset. The complainant entrusted his handset to the 1^st opposite party on 11.02.2017, but they refused to accept the gadget due to the reason that the defects were not noticed during the warranty period. The complainant alleged in his complaint that the disputed mobile handset suffered from a major manufacturing defects and the opposite party failed either to rectify the defect of the mobile handset or to replace it with a new one. Due to the above acts of the opposite parties the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience mental agony, hardships, financial loss…etc. It is contended that he act of the opposite parties amounted to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice also. Thus complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset with a new one or to refund its price with interest. He also sought for compensation and costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.

2)       Notices were issued to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties from this Forum and notices were served on them. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared before this Forum but not filed their version within the statutory period.  Evidence in this case consisted of proof affidavit filed by the complainant. PW1 is not cross examined by the opposite parties 1 and 2.  Exbt. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant as documentary evidences. No oral evidence and documentary evidences adduced by the opposite parties.  Heard the complainant who appeared in person.

 3)      Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get either replace the mobile handset with a new one or refund it price along with interest from the opposite parties?
3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

4)       Issue Nos. (i) and (ii)

According to the complainant, he had purchased a branded new mobile handset on 24.01.2017 from the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured and marketed by the 2^nd opposite party manufacturer at a price of Rs.16,000/-. At the time of its purchase, the 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that the mobile handset was of a particular standard quality in style and model.  The complainant stated in his complaint that the disputed mobile handset became defunct within a short period from the date of its purchase.  Therefore, the complainant had approached the opposite party and their authorized service centres for curing the defects of the disputed mobile.  But the opposite parties failed to find out the reasons for the occurrence of the defects in the gadget even after they took their efforts to rectify the problems  of the mobile phone.   The complainant again and again approached the opposite parties for rectifying the defects of the mobile but his requests fell on  deaf ears.

5)       Exbt. A1 Tax invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant on 24.01.2017 showed that the complainant had purchased the disputed mobile handset from the 1^st opposite party at a price of Rs.16,000/-. Exbt. A2 is the warranty card issued by the manufacturer which shows that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset on 24.01.2017 and the manufacturer provided one year warranty for the same.  Exbt. A3 Job sheet dated 30.01.2017 issued by Voice Plus Cochin who is the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party  shows that the complainant had entrusted the mobile handset with them for the reasons stated that the mobile phone became  ‘ hanging while switch on”.  Exbt. A4 is the service job sheet dated on 10.07.2017 shows that the complainant had approached the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party for curing the defects of the disputed mobile handset.  As per the Exbt. A4 job sheet the disputed mobile handset became defunct due to the “heating, application error and hanging while switch on”.

6)       In this case, Exbt.A1 shows that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset on 24.01.2017.  The complainant alleged in his complaint that the mobile handset became defunct within 3 days of its purchase. Exbt. A3 and A4 are the service job sheets which were proved that the averments of the complainant and facts of the complaint are true and believable. Exbt. A2 the warranty card showed that the mobile handset became defunct during the warranty period when the complaint was made.   The opposite parties miserably failed to cure the defects of the disputed handset, even after they had attempted various efforts on the gadget.. The complainant also pointed out that he had approached the opposite parties several times to cure the defects of the mobile handset, but all his requests fell on deaf ears. The opposite parties did not do anything to redress the grievances of the complainant. The opposite parties could not produce any contrary evidence before this Forum to prove that the case of the complainant is false and baseless. Therefore we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is believable and he has proved gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. We analyze the facts and circumstances of this case and find that he is entitled to get either to replace the mobile handset with a new one or to refund its price  and we find that the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the mobile handset to the complainant as per the Exbt. A1 Tax invoice.  We find that the issue Nos. (i) and (ii) in favour of the complainant.

7)       Issue No. (ii)

 We find that there is serious deficiency in service happened on the side of the opposite parties.  The complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, financial loss….etc. due to the deficiency in service and negligent attitude on the part of the opposite parties.  In that case, we find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties. We award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

8)       In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund an amount of Rs.16,000/- to the complainant, which being the price of the disputed mobile handset as per the Exbt.A1 tax invoice.
2. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall also jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The above orders shall be complied with, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

         Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 7^th day of February 2018.

                                                                    Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member.

                                                                    Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                                    Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

                                                                             Forwarded by Order

                                                                             Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch   :

                   By Hand      :

                   By Post       :

APPENDIX

Opposite party’s Exhibits     ::    Nil

…………………..