IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM  

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

        Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

Hon’ble Mrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, Member

CC No. 274/2016

Tuesday the 28th    day of February, 2017.

Petitioner                                          :        Manjesh Raj,

                                                                   Puthenpurayil House,

                                                                   Kudavechoor  P.O., 

                                                                   Kottayam – 686 144.

                                                           Vs.

Opposite parties                               : 1)    Lenovo (India) Private Ltd.,

                                                                   Ferns Icon, Level 2,

Doddenakundi  Village,

Marthahally outer Ring Road,

KR Puram, Hobli,

Bangalore – 560 037.

                                                             2)   Proprietor,

                                                                   WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                                   No. 42/1&43, Kacherakanahalli

                                                                   Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli,

Hoskote Taluk, Bangaluru,

Karnataka – 560 067.

                                                                    (Adv. Thomas Joseph)

                                                           3)    Proprietor,

Bharath Time Gallery,

Thadathil Buildings, TB Road,

Kottayam – 686001.

                                                            4)    The Manager,

Voice Plus Service Centre,

Malikayil Buildings, Iranjal Road,

Opp. Mount Carmel School,

Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam – 686 001.

                                                O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

                The case of the complainant filed on 03/10/2016 is as follows:

            The complainant on 24/01/16 purchased a phone A 6000 model manufactured by the  1^st opposite party, from the 2^nd opposite party.  According to the complainant   he was verified the warranty book when the 3^rd opposite party demanded the same for service and  it was understood that  the delivered  phone is a second hand.  In the  warranty book it is noted that the  said phone was sold on 10/12/2015.  Then it was intimated to the opposite parties.  But there was no response from the part of  opposite parties.  According to the complainant the said act of opposite parties delivering a second hand phone instead of a new one amounts to  unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

            1^st and 3^rd opposite parties appeared but they has not filed version.

            Even after accepting  the notice 2^nd opposite party  has not cared to appear or filed version.

Points for considerations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
2. Relief and costs.

Evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of the complainant and

Ext. A1 to  A3 documents.

Point No. 1

            The crux of the complainant case is that 2^nd opposite party, the authorised dealer of the 1^st opposite party, had delivered a second hand phone instead of a  new brand.  The said fact was noted  in the warranty book issued by the 1^st opposite party along with the phone.  Complainant produced the retail invoice issued  by the 2^nd opposite party and the same is marked as Ext. A1.  From Ext. A1 it can be understood that the  2^nd opposite party had collected Rs. 7,500/- as the price of the phone and  the date of purchase is on 24/01/2016.  Ext. A2 is the warranty book.  The seal of “Image Mobiles & Computers,” Minervapadi, Nilambur is affixed in Ext. A1 and date is  also noted as 10/02/2015.  From this it can be understood that the disputed phone is a second hand phone, which was sold by the  second opposite party.  In our view the act  of 2^nd opposite party delivering  a second hand phone instead of new brand, amounts to unfair trade  practice.  Being the 2^nd opposite party is the authorised  dealer of the 1^st opposite party, 1^st opposite party is also liable for the  said act of 2^nd opposite party.  Due to the said act of opposite parties  complainant had suffered much mental pains and loss.  So he is to be compensated. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

 Point No. 2

            In view of the finding in point No. 1 , complaint is allowed .  In the result:

1. 1^st and 2^nd  opposite parties are  ordered to replace the phone with a

brand new one having   same model and features.     

                                                           OR

 of the phone to the complainant. On such an event 1^st and 2^nd opposite party can take back the disputed phone from the custody of the complainant.

2. 1^st and 2^nd  opposite parties are ordered  to pay Rs. 3,000/- as

compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost of the to the complainant.

The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the

 date of receipt of copy order.  If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th  day of  February, 2017.

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President           Sd/-

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member    Sd/-

Hon’ble Mrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, Member           Sd/-

                                                     Appendix

Documents for the petitioner:

Ext. A1: Copy of the purchase Bill.

Ext. A2: Warranty card

Ext. A3: Copy of the service order

Documents for the opposite parties
 

Nil

                                                                                                                                                                By Order,

                                                                                                                                  Senior Superintendent