Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainant purchased a Sumsung Sm - E700 Model Mobile Phone from 2^nd opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 19,000/- on 30/05/2015.  When the display of the mobile phone has become defective on 01/01/2016 the mobile phone entrusted with 2^nd opposite party and after rectifying the defect the mobile phone was returned to the complainant by receiving Rs. 7,600/-.  It is contended that on 08/11/2016 onwards the display of the mobile phone has become again defective so that the complainant asked the 2^nd opposite party to replace the same.  The 2^nd opposite party refused to do it.  According to the complainant the defect of the display happened due to the low quality of the mobile phone and the non replacement of new display facility to the mobile phone which is a deficiency in service on the part the opposite parties.  It is contended that the non rectification of the defect caused so many inconvenience to the complainant.  Hence, this case for the refund of the mobile price Rs. 19,000/- with interest 2% refund of the maintenance charge Rs. 7,600/-, compensation, cost etc. etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  The 1^st opposite party appeared in person on 14/02/2017 and filed a memo seeking time to entrust a counsel and for version on 24/01/2017. The 1^st opposite party did not appear hereafter. The 2^nd opposite party filed a vakkalath and prayed time for version.  Though this Forum granted several time to the 2^nd opposite party for filing version they always seek time for adjournment for filing version and at last on 21/03/2017,  this Forum was disallowed the request of the opposite party 2 and case posted for complainant’s evidence.
4. On the basis of the complaint and records before us we framed the following issues:

1. Whether the complaint is allowable?
2. Regarding the relief and costs?

5.  In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit along with the mobile phone and replaced display.  He is examined as PW1.  Through the PW1 Ext. A1 to A3, MO1 & MO2 were also marked. Ext A1 is the Mobile bill dated: 30/05/2015.  Ext. A2 is the Acknowledgment of service request dated: 01/01/2016.  Ext. A3 is the mobile display bill for an amount of Rs. 7,600/- dated: 02/02/2016.  MO1 is the Mobile Phone and MO2 is the mobile phone display.  Even at the trial of this case the counsel for the 2^nd opposite party appeared before this Forum but did not cross-examine PW1 since 2^nd opposite party has not filed any version against the complaint.  After the closure of evidence we heard the complainant. 
6. Point No 1 &2 :-   For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.1 & 2 together.  The case of the complainant PW1 is that he purchased a Sumsung Sm - E700 Model Mobile Phone by paying an amount of Rs. 19,000/- to 2^nd opposite party on 30/05/2015.  In order to prove the purchase of mobile he produced the purchase bill dated: 30/05/2015 which was marked as Ext. A1.  It is deposed that when the display of the mobile became defective he filed a complaint before 1^st opposite party on 01/11/2016 and the complaint is marked as Ext.A2.  PW1 paid an amount of Rs. 7,600/- to 1^st opposite party for rectifying the defect of the display and he started to use the mobile phone.  Ext. A3 dated: 02/02/2016 is the bill of Rs. 7,600/- to prove this payment.  PW1 produced and marked the mobile phone and replaced display before this Forum and these materials are marked as MO1 and MO2 respectively.  When we evaluate the evidence of PW1 in this case it is to be understood that though 1^st and 2^nd opposite party appeared before the Forum and 2^nd opposite party participated the trial even up to the end of the trial either the 1^st or 2^nd opposite party did not file any version against the complaint of the complainant.  In this situation the evidence adduced by PW1 is unchallengeable as far as 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are concerned. 
7. In the light of the evidence adduced by PW1 in this case it can be inferred that the complainant he who purchased a mobile phone from 1^st opposite party which is manufactured by 2^nd opposite party on 30/05/2015 and it became defective.  Even after repairement dated: 02/01/2016 by paying an amount of Rs. 7,600/- to the 1^st opposite party by PW1 on 07/11/2016 again the display of the phone became defective.  He complained this fact to 1^st opposite party but he did not redress the grievances of the complainant PW1. When PW1 filed proof affidavit before this Forum on 26/04/2017 he produced the mobile phone and replaced display which were marked as MO1 and MO2.  It is found that this MO1 phone is not working properly.  The chance of repairing the phone by the opposite parties are also not expected since they are not filed any version or give any answer with regard to the complaint.   We can see that as the consumer of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party he suffered a lot due to the non redressal of grievances happened to PW1.  No doubt, we can come to a conclusion to the effect that as discussed earlier 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are duty bound to rectify the grievances of the complainant PW1.  Here it is proved that 1^st and 2^nd opposite party committed deficiency in service against the complainant and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to the complainant.  It is also found that the 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the mobile phone and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile phone.  Therefore the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the dealer is also answerable by the manufacturer 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are severely and jointly liable to the complainant.  Point No.1 &2 are found in favour of the complainant. 

8.  In the result we pass the following orders:

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are here by directed to pay an amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand only) as the price of the mobile and Rs. 7,600/-(Rupees Seven Thousand Six Hundred only) as the expenditure for replacing the display of the mobile with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.
2. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and a cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.   
3. The complainant is directed to receive MO1 and MO2 from this Forum within two weeks of the receipt of this order and entrust MO1 and MO2 to 1^st opposite party’s office if they complied order No. 1&2 above. 

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of October, 2017.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                          (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)      :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Abraham Varghese.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Mobile bill dated: 30/05/2015. 

A2 :  Acknowledgment of service request dated: 01/01/2016.

A3 : Rectifying the defects of the mobile display bill an amount of Rs. 7,600/-

       dated: 02/02/2016. 

MO1: The mobile phone.

MO2: The mobile display.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

                                                                                                    (By Order)

          Copy to:-  (1) Abraham Varghese,

                               Kavalayil Veetil,

                               Kaviyoor Post, Kaviyoor Village,

                     Thiruvalla                                 

2. The Proprietor,

                     Jumbo Electronics,

                     SCS Junction,

                     Marthoma Building,  Thiruvalla – 689101

3. The Manager,

                     Sumsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

                     27/224 Mithun Towers,

                              K.P. Vallon Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi – 682020. 

                         (4)  The Stock File.