This case coming on 09.10.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri        P. Appanna, Advocate for the Complainant Sri E.V. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd  and 3^rd Opposite Parties being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

                                                ORDER

        (As per Smt. K. Saroja Honourable Lady Member on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant purchased a LG 400 handset mobile phone Vide Receipt No. P. Vis/309 dt.11.04.2013 from the 3^rd Opposite Party.   The Complainant operated the mobile hand set, the screen was not properly visible and found defects in the product.   On the next day of its purchase the Complainant made a complaint with the 3^rd Opposite Party and surrendered the product for its rectification on 29.04.2013.   Inspsite of many requests made by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties did not rectify the mobile set or replace the same with another mobile.    Then the Complainant issued a Legal Notice dated 19.06.2013, received by the Opposite Parties but did not give any reply from the Opposite Parties.    Hence, this Complaint.

2.       a) to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the new cell of the same model without any defects in the place of defected phone (or) to refund the cost of the cell phone of Rs.7,050/- together with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e., 11.04.2013 till the date of  actual realization; b) to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental torture, physical strain, suffered by the Complainant; c) to pay costs of this Complaint; and d) pass such other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3.       The 1^st Opposite Party Strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter. 

 The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties did not appear before this Forum.   Hence, they were set exparte and remained exparte.

4.       The 1^st Opposite Party denied the allegations made by the Complainant stating that the Complainant never visited the service centre of the 1^st Opposite Party at any point of time for getting the mobile rectification.   The Complainant purchased the mobile phone from the 3^rd Opposite Party for rectification but not the 1^st Opposite Party.   So, they have liability to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

5.       At the time of enquiry, both the Opposite Parties filed their affidavits as well as written arguments to support their contentions.     Exs.A1 to A5 are marked for the Complainant.   No documents were marked for the Opposite Parties.

6.       ExA1 is the Tax Invoice dated 11.4.2013.   Ex.A2 is the Delivery Note.   Ex.A3 is the acknowledgement.  Ex.A4 is the Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3, dated 19.06.2013.  Ex.A5 is the Postal Receipt.

7.       Ex.A2 reveals that the Complainant handed over the LG Mobile set for rectification of defects on 29.4.2013.   Ex.A1 reveals that the Complainant purchased the alleged mobile phone on 11.4.2013.

8.       The point that would arise for determination in the case is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

9.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant purchased LG mobile hand set on 11.4.2013 and it was handed over to the Opposite Party for rectification of defects on 29.4.2013 according to Exs.A1 and A2.    It reveals that there are some defects in the alleged mobile hand set.   The Complainant approached number of times and requested the 1^st Opposite Party to rectify the mobile phone and hand over it to her.   But the 1^st Opposite Party in their counter stated that after receipt of the legal notice, the officials of the company called the Complainant several times regarding the replacement of the same, but the Complainant denied for it.   The statement shows that the 1^st Opposite Party has knowledge that the above mobile phone is not in working condition and also she approached the service centre of the 1^st Opposite Party.    As the mobile phone is within the warranty period that too from the date of next day of its purchase, the mobile phone was not functioning properly.   It shows that there is manufacturing defect in the said mobile phone.   Now a days mobile phone is very essential to the public/customers.     As such, the Complainant’s wish of having a mobile phone with all important features like dictionary is defeated by the acts of the Opposite Parties.     Hence, the Complainant is entitled to refund of cost of the mobile phone with interest, some compensation and costs too.

10.     In the result, this Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Parties 1 to 3: a) to refund an amount of Rs.7,050/- (Rupees Seven thousand and fifty only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 29.4.2013 to till the date of actual realization, and to pay b) a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and c) Costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant.    Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.    Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only)

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this 21^st day of October, 2014.

Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                Sd/-

President                            Male Member                      Lady Member

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

For the Opposite Parties:-     

                                                -Nil-

Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                Sd/-

President                       Male Member                                             Lady Member