IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Saturdy, the 29^th   day of April, 2017.

Filed on 23-09-2016

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

in

C.C.No.306/16

between

Complainants:-                                                 Opposite parties:-

Sri. Anil Joseph1.Lenovo India Pvt.Ltd

Edathil HouseFerns Icon Level 2,

Alappuzha-688 501Marathahalli,

Outer Ring Road,

K.R Puram Hobli,

(By Adv.Miji.S.Mony)

H.O, Anson Shopping Complex

Near Iron Bridge, CCSB Road,

Cellular Service,

CCNB Road,Mullackal,

O R D E R

          SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)

The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-

The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party for the purpose of buying a mobile phone on 12/4/2016.  The salesman of the 3^rd opposite party induced the complainant to purchase the mobile phone manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and accordingly he purchased a phone worth Rs.9,300/-manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties assured 1 year warranty for the product.  The complainant also took an insurance coverage for the product for 1 year after spending an amount of Rs.799/-.  The complainant further alleged that the 3^rd opposite party assured to replace the phone if any defect occurred within 7 days of purchase.  But unfortunately the phone started giving trouble on the date of purchase itself.  Several times it hanged and automatically switched off.  The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party and intimated the defect and the 3^rd opposite party updated the software and returned the phone.  But the defect persisted.  The complainant again approached the 3^rd opposite party on 24/8/16 but the defect was not cured.  The complainant after receiving the phone from the 3^rd opposite party entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the phone is water logged and denied the warranty and issued an estimate for Rs.5,600/- for repairing the same.  Since the complainant has taken an insurance for the product as per the assurance given by the 3^rd opposite party the complainant entrusted the phone and estimate bill to the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party assured to replace or repair the phone within 10 days free of cost.  But the phone has not been repaired or replaced so far.  Hence filed this complaint.

2.Notice was served to the opposite parties. 1^st opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version.  2^nd opposite party appeared before the Forum and agreed to refund the price of the phone but the 2^nd opposite party was absent for the subsequent proceedings and hence set exparte.  3^rd opposite party did not appear before the Forum and hence set exparte.

3. Version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows.

          There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The damage resulting misuse, abuse and accident are not covered under warranty.  However considering the repute and standing as a gesture of goodwill this opposite party is willing to offer refund of cost of the mobile phone upon production of the original purchase invoice of mobile phone.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents ExtA1 to A3 were marked.

5. Considering the allegation of the complainant and contention of the opposite party the Forum has raised the following issues:-

      1) Whether there is any deficiency in the service of the opposite parties?

      2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief and cost?

6.Issues 1 and 2

The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the 3^rd opposite party on 12/4/2016 for an amount of Rs.9,300/-.  3^rd opposite party induced the complainant to take an insurance for the product and accordingly the complainant took an insurance after remitting an amount of Rs.799/- and as per the insurance  the  3^rd opposite party assured to repair or replace the product if any defects occur during 1 year.  The product became defective within the said period but either the 3^rd opposite party or the other opposite parties failed to rectify the defect or to replace the product.    The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party many times for getting the phone repaired or replaced.  But the 3^rd opposite party has not taken any earnest effort to redress the grievance of the complainant.  The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.

7. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ext.A1 toA3 were marked.  Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated 12/4/16.  From this it can be seen that the complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.9,300/-.  Ext.A2 is the copy of Mobile Protection for handset.  Ext.A3 is estimate dated 24/8/16 issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  According to the complainant from the 1^st day of purchase itself the phone remained defective it hanged several times and automatically switched off.  The complainant entrusted phone to the 3^rd opposite party many times for getting the defects rectified but the same defect persisted.  According to the complainant he could not use the phone atleast for a single day.  Ext.A2 shows that the complainant has taken a mobile protection after remitting an amount of Rs.799/-.  According to the complainant the 3^rd opposite party induced the complainant for taking the insurance coverage and assured to repair or replace the phone if any defect occur during 1 year but the 3^rd opposite party failed to provide the assured service to the complainant.  Eventhough notice was served to the 3^rd opposite party they did not appear before the Forum and challenge the allegation leveled against them.   The entire action on the part of the 3^rd opposite party shows their irresponsible attitude.  They have not made any earnest effort to redress the grievances of the complainant.   Therefore we hold that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant.  1^st opposite party in their version expressed their willingness to refund the price of the mobile phone and ordered accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is allowed.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is directed to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs.9,300/- to the complainant.  3^rd opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant.  No order as to costs.

          The Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of Rs.9,300/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.  On compliance of the order the complainant is directed to return the defective phone to the opposite party 1 and 2.

          Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of April, 2017.

                                                                     Sd/-  Smt. Jasmine.D (Member

                                                                    Sd/-  Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

                                                              Sd/-   Sri. Antony Xavier(Member)

Appendix

Evidence of the complainant:

PW1            -        Anil Joseph(Witness)

Ext.A1         -        Copy of Retail invoice dtd 12/4/16

Ext.A2         -        Copy of Mobile protection for handset

Ext.A3         _        Copy of Estimate dtd 24/8/16

Evidence of opposite parties:  Nil

//True Copy//

By Order

Senior Superintendent

To    

          Complainant/Opposite party/S.F