IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Sri. Bose Augustine, President

Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member

CC No. 29/2017

Tuesday 30^th day of January, 2018

Complainant                                               :         Sheeba K.P.,

                                                                             Proprietor,

                                                                             S.R. Pharma P.O.,

                                                                            Kaningattukala Bldg.,

                                                                             Perumbaikkadu

(Mullankuzhyiyil (H)

                                                                             Purumbaikkadu P.O.,

                                                                             Kottayam-16

                                                                             (Adv. Avaneesh V.N.)

Vs

Opposite parties                                         :1.      Gionee Syn Tech

                                                                                  Technologies Pvt. Ltd,

                                                                             F-2, Block No. B-1

Ground Floor, Mohan Co-op.   Industrial Estate,   Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044

                                                                     2.     Proprietor

Oxygen Digital Shop,

Oxygen Tower, M.C. Road,

Nagampadom, Kottayam-6

                                                          O R D E R

SRI. BOSE AUGUSTINE, PRESIDENT

          The case of the complainant filed on 24.1.17 is as follows.

          Complainant purchased a Gionee M5 mobile phone for₹ 12200, manufactured by the 1^st opposite party, from the 2^nd opposite party on 22.10.16 and within one week it became defective.  So she approached the 2^nd opposite party and they had rectified the defects.  But in  the month of November last the mobile phone showed the same defects and  it was entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party for repair.  And the service person of the 2^nd opposite party had repaired  the mobile phone.  But the problem of the mobile phone is continued and again it was entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party.  The service person of the 2^nd opposite party  informed that software system is not functioning and the defect cannot be cured, it is due to manufacturing defects.  So the complainant demanded to refund the bill amount.  According to the complainant defect of the mobile  phone is within warranty period and the said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and  unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint is filed.

            After accepting the notice opposite parties have not cared to appear or file version.

Points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and costs

Evidence in this case consist of  the proof affidavit of the complainant

and Exts. A1 to A4 documents.

Point No.1

          The case of the complainant is that his mobile phone manufactured by the 1^st opposite party, purchased from the 2^nd opposite party become defective within warranty period and it was repaired by the service person of the 2^nd opposite party.  Even after so many repair, the defect of the mobile phone continued and it is due to the manufacturing defect of the mobile phone.  Complainant produced the copy of the invoice issued by the 2^nd opposite party and the same is marked as Ext. A1.  From Ext. A1 it can be understood that on 22.10.16 complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 2^nd opposite party and 2^nd opposite party had collected ₹12200 as the price of the same.  From Exts. A2 and A3 Goods inward Note, it can be understood that on 31.10.16 and 29.11.16 the mobile phone was entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party for repair.  In Exts. A2 and A3 the defect is noted as “charging not possible.  In the absence of  contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A4 documents.  In  our view the defect  of the mobile phone is due  to an inferior quality of the  product.  The act of opposite parties delivering an inferior quality of the product and in not replacing the same amounts to deficiency in  service and unfair trade practice.  Point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2

          In view of the finding in point No.1 complaint is allowed. 

In the result,

1. Opposite parties are ordered to replace the complainant’s  mobile phone with a brand new of same model having same features or opposite parties are ordered to refund ₹12200 the price of the mobile to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties are ordered to pay ₹2500 as compensation and ₹1500 as cost of the litigation to the complainant.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  If not complied the award amount will carry interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of order till realisation.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount  to the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30^th day of January, 2018

SRI. BOSE AUGUSTINE, PRESIDENT  Sd/-

SMT. RENU P. GOPALAN, MEMBER    Sd/-

Appendix

Documents for the complainant

Ext. A1- copy of the invoice dt. 22.10.16

Ext. A2- copy of goods inward note  dt. 31.10.16

Ext. A3- copy of goods inward note  dt. 29.11.16

Ext. A4- copy of warranty card

Proof affidavit of the petitioner

Documents for the opposite parties- nil

                                                                                      By order,

                                                                             Senior Superintendent.