0IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2011
Filed on 14.09.2010
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 215/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. K.S. Subin 1. Keen Awards Ltd., RM –
Kollammarathu House 514, S/F Manhattan Centre
S.L. Puram P.O. – 688 523 8 – Kwai, Cheong Road
Alappuzha District Kwai Chung N.T., Honkong
(By Adv. M.P. Manojkumar)
2. Pioneer Associates
(Represented by Manager)
Vadakke Veettil Building
Puthiyakavu, Mavelikara
3. United Tele Links Ltd.
L – 13 Diamond District
Airport Road, Kodihalli
Bangalore, India
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. K.S. Subin has filed this complaint on 14.09.2010. The brief facts of his complaint are as follows:- He had purchased a new Mobile phone – Karbonn Model No. KC 441 from the 2nd opposite party’s shop, for a sum of Rs.5002/- on 9.9.2009 with warranty for a period of one year. From the date of its purchase, the set having problem and defects. The battery stand by as per the instruction given to him by the 2nd opposite party, and he charged it for 8 hours, but when the battery was fully charged, the set was detached from the charger and started using the same. There is no clarity for the speech coupled with the defect of spontaneous stoppage of working when a call is made and it was not showing the symbol of reception of signals ever since the date of purchase. He contacted the 2nd opposite party and explained the defects. But the 2nd opposite party had not given proper service to the defective set and he has not obtained any positive relief from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Even though the opposite parties had accepted the notices of this Forum, they have not entered appearance before the Forum. Considering their absence, the opposite parties were set exparte on 8.3.2011 and proceeded the matter for a fair adjudication.
3. Considering the allegations of the complaint, this Forum raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
3) Compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant have filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 and A2 marked – Ext.A1 is the cash receipt No.1005 dt. 9.9.2009 issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party at the time of purchase of the said set. It shows that the price of the set was Rs.5002/-. Ext.A2 is the copy of the warranty card. It shows that the said mobile set has one year warranty.
5. We have fully examined the entire aspect of this case and verified the documents purchased by the complainant in evidence. Ext.A1 shows that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5002/- to the opposite party for the said mobile set. The complainant had purchased the set on 9.9.2009 vide the said receipt. It is alleged that within few days the set became defective, such as defective battery, speaker defects and description signals are also defective. When contacted the 2nd opposite party by the complainant, the 2nd opposite party, the dealer has not taken sincere effort to rectify the effort to rectify the defects or exchange the set for a new one. The defects alleged by the complainant shows the set has manufacturing defects. So the 2nd opposite party dealer, was bound to exchange the set, since the set has manufacturing defects. But the 2nd opposite party has evaded from the liability and not turned up to give a new set and neglected to rectify the defects permanently. This shows the deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant is fully entitled to get a new set from the 2nd opposite party, since the purchased set has manufacturing defects. The entire action taken by the 2nd opposite party in this issue shows their irresponsible nature and it will amounts to cheating. By this, the 2nd opposite party is fully responsible. The whole action taken by the 2nd opposite party was highly illegal and fraudulent. Since there was purposeful denial to rectify the defects of the set, or refusal to give a new set, the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay the compensation and cots to the complainant. The whole facts and circumstances of this case shows the irresponsible attitude of the 2nd opposite party. It is to be further noticed that the opposite parties have not shown any interest to represent before the Forum in order to state the reasons or for an amicable settlement of the case involved in the matter, even though they have accepted the notice of this Forum. This shows their negligent attitude towards this purchase by the complainant. Considering the whole aspects of this matter, we are of the view that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite parties are to be treated as genuine and the complaint is to be allowed. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby direct the 2nd opposite party to give a new set having the same specification and same price to the complainant after collecting the defective set from him with a fresh warranty to the new set and further pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, harassment, physical strain and loss due to the purposeful denial to give a new set to the complainant and denial of rectify the defects in time, by way of deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. We direct the 2nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of the proceedings to the complainant. We further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the 2nd opposite party for the realization of the said amount, in case any default to pay the amount by the 2nd opposite party, and further direct the 2nd opposite party to comply this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Cash receipt No.1005 dt. 9.9.2009
Ext.A2 - Copy of the warranty card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by :-pr/-
Compared by:-
