CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 79/11
Monday the 15th day of October,2012
Petitioner : Moncy T.Maliakel,
Thanavelil,
Vadavathoor,
Kottayam.
(Adv.D.Zaibo)
Vs.
Opposite party : 1. Lava International Ltd,
Noida-201301 Uttar Pradesh
Rep.by its Director,
Hari Om Rai
2. M/s. Mobile World
Thadathilparambil Building,
Collectorate, Kottayam
Rep.by its Proprietor.
3. M.M.Trading Co,
CSI Commercial buildings,
Baker Jn, Kottayam
Rep.by its Managing Director.
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)
The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a LAVA A9 model mobile phone with IMIE No.910040073327541 on 16/04/10 on payment of Rs. 4800/- to the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized dealer of lava international Ltd. The mobile phone is manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties had offered a warranty of one year. After one month of purchase the phone started showing mal functioning. Almost all the features in the hand set became not functioning and it became useless. The complainant entrusted the defective phone to the opposite party and it was replaced with another phone of the same model. But the said phone also showed the very same defect. The complainant alleged that he suffered financial loss and hardships due to the damage caused to the phone. Hence the complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and claimed refund of Rs.4800/- with 18% interest along with compensation of Rs.3000/- and litigation cost Rs.2000/-.
Notice was issued to all the three opposite parties. But notice to first opposite party was not served due to lack of correct address. Hence the first opposite party was deleted from the party array. Opposite party 2 and 3 entered appearance but failed to file version even after so many postings. So opposite party 2 and 3 were also set expartee.
Points for considerations are:
i)Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Relieves and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1.
Point No.1
Heard the complainant and perused the document placed on record. The complainant averred that he purchased a lava A9 mobile phone from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.4800/- on 16/4/10. Evidencing the said purchase the complainant produced the original retail invoice and it is marked as Ext.A1. The complainant next averred that the opposite parties had offered a warranty of one year but the mobile phone became useless after one month of its purchase. The complainant again averred that the opposite parties replaced the defective mobile phone with another one of the same model but that phone also showed the same defect. It was alleged by the complainant that the said malfunctioning of the mobile occurred due to the poor workmanship and manufacturing defects. The complainant stated that he purchased the said mobile phone
believing the opposite parties’ reputation and lured by the assurances given by them regarding the long lasting quality, warranty and services. The complainant further alleged that he suffered financial loss and therefore the opposite parties are liable to compensate him. As the opposite parties chose not to contest the averments and allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties remain unchallenged. From the evidence placed on record we feel that the opposite parties are deficient in their service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed.
In this case the complainant purchased mobile phone from the second opposite party. As the privity of contract is with the second opposite party, we are of the opinion that the second opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint is ordered as follows.
The 2nd opposite party will refund Rs.4800/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.1000/- and litigation cost Rs.500/-. If the defective mobile phone is with the complainant, the opposite party can take back the said defective phone after complying the order.
If the order will be complied with within one month of receipt of it failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 15th day of October, 2012.
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C) Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Original retail invoice dtd 16/4/10 for Rs.4800/-
By Order,
