IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 29th day of February, 2016
Filed on 20.11.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC.No.342/2015
Between
Complainant: Opposite parties:-
Sri. Aneesh 1. Lenova (India) Pvt. Ltd.
S/o Chandran Ferns Icon, Level 2
Umminisserrychira Doddenakundi Village
Thanneermukkom Marathahalli Quarter
Ring road, K.R. Puram Hobli
Bangalore, Karnataka
(By Adv. V. Promod)
2. Mobile Store, Dr.Radhakrishna
Kartha Memorial Building
South of Devi Temple
Cherthala
O R D E R
SMT.JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party on 9.7.2015 for an amount of Rs.7500/-. The opposite parties assured one year warranty for the said product. The phone became defective on 12.10.2015 and entrusted to the authorized service centre of the first opposite party. Even though the service centre repaired it many times the defect persisted and he could not use the phone. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice was served to the opposite parties, 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 complaint is not maintainable. The alleged defect happened due to the negligent use of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The mobile was repaired and resolved by replacing the respective parts under terms and conditions of the warranty. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from this opposite party. So, the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The complainant produced three documents marked as Exts.A1 and A2 were marked and the mobile phone produced before the Forum is marked as Ext.MO1.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant and the contentions of the first opposite party, 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 compensation and costs from the opposite
parties?
5. Issues 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.7500/- on 9.7.2015 which has one year warranty. After 3 months from the date of purchase, the product failed to function. Even though the authorized service centre repaired it many times the defect has not rectified. The defect is persisting and the complainant could not use the phone. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
6. The complainant produced the phone which was marked as MO1 and the documents were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by the second opposite party evidencing that the complainant had purchased a Lenovo A 6000 black phone for an amount of Rs.7500/-, Ext.A2 is the service record shows that the product is defective during warranty period. According to the complainant the mobile phone was defective on many occasions and it is pertinent to note that the defect occurred immediately after 3 months from the date of purchase. The complainant produced the phone before the Forum. Evidently the complainant could not use the phone due to its recurring defect. Since the defect has not been rectified so far, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. They are liable to replace the mobile phone with a new one with fresh warranty. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same model with fresh warranty. The opposite parties are further directed pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant. The complainant is directed to return the defective phone to the opposite parties simultaneously. 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 by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
APPENDIX:
Evidence of the complainant:
Ext.A1 - Copy of the bill for Rs.7500/-
Ext.A2 - Copy of the service record
MO1 - Mobile phone
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
//True copy//
By order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/opposite parties/Stock file
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
