By. Smt. Rose Jose, President:

            This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.12,999/- the purchase price of the defective mobile phone sold to him along with compensation for his financial loss, mental agony and- other inconveniences suffered due to the defects of the phone and also cost of the proceedings.

            2.  The case of the petitioner is that, lured by the attractive advertisement made by the opposite parties through websites and other medias regarding the quality and unique features of lenova K8 Note mobile phones manufactured by the 1^st opposite party, he has purchased a lenova K8 Note(venom black 4 GB) mobile phone on 18.12.2017 through the  opposite party worth Rs.12,999/-. The handset was delivered to him on 22.12.2017 by the 2^nd  opposite party at Kozhikode. It is alleged by the petitioner that on the first day of its use, the set started over heating and the heat generated was so high, it became unfit for use and unable to hold it in his hands or to carry it in his pocket. During the subsequent days the set developed some other problems also. Though the opposite parties advertised and stated on the package of the handset that its battery has a capacity of 4000 mah, however the charge in the battery was found to be draining at a higher rate than normal for a device with a battery capacity of 4000 mah. The set after being charged to its full capacity at 9 a.m in the morning, displayed a charge of less than 50% by noon. The set was also unable to detect mobile network at frequent intervals making it impossible to make calls or access the internet. The network symbol on the top of the screen displayed ‘X’ mark most of the time. Moreover due to the serious malfunctioning of the display, incoming calls were not displayed on the screen. During incoming calls only the ringtone was played but the screen remained locked and dark and so he could not identify the incoming calls. All these caused much inconvenience, mental stress and strain and other hardships to him.

            3.  So, on 16.01.2018 he had submitted the phone to the 3^rd opposite party who is the authorized service center of the 1^st  opposite party Company for repairs. All the defects with the set was acknowledged by them at the time of receiving the set for repairs. They promised him that all the defects will be cured after repair. On 20.01.2018 they returned the set saying that all the defects are rectified. But it is found that none of the defects were rectified as stated and the set was not fit for use after service also. So he was forced to submit the phone again to the 3^rd opposite party on 22.01.2018 for the rectification of the defects. They returned the set on 01.02.2018 promising that all the defects are rectified to his satisfaction and it win not occur again. But to his utter dismay it is found that all the defects which the 3^rd  opposite party claimed to have been rectified is still persisting the 3^rd  opposite party could not rectify or failed to rectify the defects of the set even after two attempts. This clearly shows that the mobile is having some inherent defects means manufacturing defects.

            4.  The petitioner further stated that, for complaining about the failure of the service center i.e. the 3^rd opposite party in rectifying the defects with the phone, he contacted the 1^st opposite party the manufacturer in their customer service contact number 9072474074 on 02.02.2018 but they didn't register his complaint. He had purchased the said mobile of the 1^st opposite party on the firm belief that it will be free from all defects and will provide a trouble free service as advertised by the opposite parties but the performance of the set was very poor, pathetic disappointing and literally he had lost Rs.12,999/- due to the defects with the mobile and the lack of proper after sale service on the part of the opposite parties and actually the phone turned to be a burden to him now. Moreover due to the frequent visit to the service Centre of the 3^rd opposite party, he lost much time and money also. According to the petitioner the sale of a defective mobile phone to a customer is unfair trade practice and the non-provision of proper and effective after sale service to the customer's amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Even after repeated requests, the opposite parties are not ready to replace the defective phone or to refund its purchase price and to make good his losses. Hence this petition seeking reliefs.

            5.  Even after receiving notice from this Forum, the opposite parties didn't appear or filed their version. Hence the opposite parties set ex-parte.

            6.  The petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of his petition and produced 3 numbers of documents in support of his averments and these are marked as Ext.A1 to A3 as evidence on the side of the petitioner. Ext.A1 is the sale invoice dated 18.12.2017 for Rs.12,999/- issued-by the 4^th opposite party, Ext.A2 is the Job sheet dated 16.01.2018 issued by 3^rd  opposite party and Ext.A3 is the customer information slip issued by the 3^rd  opposite party. In Ext.A2 job sheet the symptoms reported is "ELS not done".  The opposite party did not file version challenging the allegations of the petitioner against them or produced any evidence to rebut the veracity of the documents marked on the side of the petitioner also.

            7.  In order to ascertain the present condition of the mobile phone in dispute, Sri.Brijmohan.K, Assistant Prof. in ECE, GEC Wayanad was appointed as expert commission to Inspect the same and to file report. After inspection, he submitted his report dated 10.12.2018 and was marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 the answers to question Nos.2 whether uncontrolled heating issue exists, 3. Whether abnormal discharge of battery exists. 4. Whether internet Network connectivity problems exists with Sim-1 and SlM-2 and 5. Whether abnormality in phone display exists during incoming call was 'yes' He observed that“the instrument lenova K8 Note XT1902-3 is found to be faulty, probably due to manufacturing defect”. So from Ext.C1 it clear that all the defects alleged by the petitioner with the phone is still existing and that is due to its manufacturing defect.

            8.  Nowadays the mobile phone became an inevitable part of human fife. Many of their transactions are done through the mobile for saving their precious time and money. So the lack of a mobile or the defects with the mobile will definitely cause much inconveniences, mental agony and even financial loss to a person. So from the facts stated and relying on the evidence produced by the petitioner and based on the finding in Ext.C1 report it is found that the handset is having manufacturing defect and so we are also of the view that the sale of the said defective phone to the petitioner is unfair trade practice and the non­provision of proper after sale service to him is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the petitioner accordingly.

            In the result the following order is passed.

            First and third opposite parties are ordered to refund the purchase price of the product ie Rs.12,999/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine) along with Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost of the proceedings (including commission batta) to the petitioner within 30 days of receipt of this Order, failing which whole amount will carry 9% interest from the date of default till payment.  Opposite party can take back the defective mobile on compliance of this Order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17^th    day of December 2018.

            Date of Filing:08.02.2018.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT      :Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER         :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                        PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

(Contd...5)

-5-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

                        Nil.                  

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.                   Tax Invoice/Bill of Supply/Cash Memo.                                  Dt:18.12.2017.

A2.                   Copy of Job Sheet.                                                                   Dt:16.01.2018.

A3.                   Copy of Customer Information Slip.                                       Dt:16.01.2018.

C1.                   Commissioner Report.                                                            Dt:10.02.2018.

MO-1.              Mobile Phone.( Lenovo K8 Note XT1902-3).

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

                        Nil.      

                                                                                                                     Sd/-                                

                                                                                                PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.