IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2016
Filed on 08.12.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.353/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Mahindran. P. 1. Index Service Centre
Thekkekarunattu Veli Sasmahal Complex
Pallippuram P.O. Vazhicherry Junction
Cherthala - 688 541 Alappuzha
2. Lava Care, Ancent Shopping
Complex, Near Iron Bridge
Alappuzha
3. Lava International Ltd.
A-56, Section – 64, Noida – 201 301
Utterpradesh
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The brief facts of the case in short are as follows:-
The complainant has purchased a Mobile phone manufactured by the third opposite party through online for an amount of Rs.8,903/- on 16.8.2015. After 3 months from the date of purchase the battery and touch pad became defective and the first opposite party has replaced the battery at free of cost and the defect with regard to the touch screen was also repaired after receiving the charges. Further after 3 months the phone became again defective and when approached the first opposite party for getting it repaired, they intimated the complainant that they relinquished the servicing of the third opposite party and directed to approach the second opposite party is the authorized service centre when approached the second opposite party, the second opposite party refused for free service stating that the board is as a soldering, so the product could not be repaired under warranty. The complainant had given the phone to another person except the first opposite party for repairing. The act of the opposite party caused much mental agony to the complainant and hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of mobile phone along with compensation and costs.
2. Notices were served to the first and second opposite parties. Notice against the third opposite party was not returned. First opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. Second opposite party has not appeared before the Forum and hence set ex-parte.
3. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant entrusted the phone for repairing. Since the touch screen was broken, it cannot be repaired under warranty. So after accepting the repairing charges the defect was rectified. The complainant approached again after 3 months by that time was ceased to jurisdiction on the service centre of third opposite party and gave the address of the present servicing centre. But the second opposite party denied the warranty, since the board was soldering. The first opposite party never solder the board. The first opposite party has replaced only the touch screen. Further the first opposite party is not the authorized servicing centre of the third opposite party and they cannot repair the product and they may be except from the liability.
4. Complainant produced the bill and was marked as Ext.A1 and mobile phone marked as MO1.
5. Considering the allegations of the complainant the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
5. Issues Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the third opposite party through online. During the warranty period the touch screen was broken and it was replaced by the first opposite party. After 3 months the phone became defective, when he approached the first opposite party has intimated the complainant that now they are not the authorized service centre of the third opposite party and gave the second opposite party’s address who is the present servicing centre. But the second opposite party after inspecting the mobile phone, denied the warranty benefits stating that there was a soldering in the board. So the complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
6. From Ext.A1it was seen that the complainant purchased the phone on 16.8.2015 through online and the product is under warranty. The complainant purchased the said phone on the basis of the assurance given by the third opposite party company that the same will be repaired from the authorized service centre at free of cost if any defect occurred within the warranty period. The justification given by the opposite party for not repairing the product which is under warranty is that there was a soldering in the panel board. According to the complainant, since the product is under warranty he never approached anyone other than the authorized service centre. The complainant produced the phone before the Forum and obviously it is not functioning. From the documents it is clear that the defect arose within the warranty period. Therefore denial of warranty benefits amounts to deficiency in service. The second opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the third opposite party is bound to repair the mobile phone at free of cost. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The second opposite party is directed to repair the mobile phone free of cost. There is no order as to costs. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected be me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2016.
Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Bill
MO1 - Mobile phone
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
