BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 1^st day of March 2018.

                                                                                                Filed on : 05.01.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                           President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                          Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                               Member.

                        C.C.No. 397/2017

                                   Between        

 O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant had purchased a Lenova VBEPI TURBO 32 GB MOBILE GRAY from the 2^nd opposite party on 04.05.2017 for an amount of Rs.17,300/- and they provided one year warranty to the mobile phone. While so, the mobile phone became defunct and the set was entrusted with the authorized service centre of the opposite parties-M/s. Oxygen Care for curing the defect. After inspecting the phone set, there was a “charging issue” found in the gadget and the physical condition of the phone was described as ‘good’ in the goods inward note dated 27.06.2017 issued to the complainant. The set was kept with the service centre for a long period and on 28.08.2017, they demanded the complainant an amount of Rs.9,650/- towards the charges for the replacement of the main board despite of the fact that the defects occurred within the warranty period. Hence the demand was turned down by the complainant. The complainant pointed out that he was entitled for rectification of the phone free of cost because of the reason stated in his complaint that the above defects were occurred within the warranty period. It is also submitted that in good inwards note it was clearly specified the physical condition of the phone was good at the time of entrusting the mobile handset to the 2^nd opposite party – Oxygen Care. Hence the reluctant act on the part of the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the handset amounted to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has been deprived of the phone facility for the last several months.  The complainant also alleged in his complaint that the above said problem had occurred due to the inherent manufacturing defects of the mobile handset which was supplied to him.  Due to the inordinate delay happened on the side of the opposite parties for rectification of the gadget, the complainant had compelled to purchase a new phone.  Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the price an amount of mobile hand set Rs.17,300/- along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of its purchase till realization. He also sought for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, hardships suffered by him due to the denial of the phone facilities for a long period and costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.

2)      Despite service of notice from this Forum the opposite parties opted not to contest the matter for their own reasons. Ex-parte proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant and Exbt. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties.  Heard the learned Counsel for the complainant.

3)      Issues came up for considerations are as follows

1.  Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed mobile handset along with interest @ 12% from the opposite parties?

3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

4)      Issue Nos. (i) and (ii)

The complainant had purchased a Lenova VBEPI TURBO 32 GB mobile handset from the 2^nd opposite party on 04.05.2017 at a price of Rs. 17,300/-.  The above mobile handset manufactured and marketed by the 1^st opposite party. Exbt. A1 Retail invoice issued by the 2^nd opposite party goes to show that the above contention of the complainant is true and correct. According to the complainant, the disputed mobile handset became defunct within a short period from the date of its purchase. Therefore, he had entrusted the mobile handset to M/s. Oxygen Care which is the authorized service centre of the opposite parties.  Exbt. A2 is a goods inward note issued by M/s.Oxygen Care shows that the physical condition of the disputed mobile handset was ‘good’.  Exbt. A3 service bill dated 28.08.2017 issued by M/s. Oxygen Care shows that the main board of the disputed mobile handset had replaced and the service centre demanded an amount of Rs.9,650/- from the complainant towards replacement of the main board and service charges.

5)      The complainant stated in his complaint and argued that he had purchased the mobile hand set on 04.05.2017 and one year warranty was also provided by them.  Subsequently the phone became defunct within a short period.  Therefore, the complainant had entrusted the mobile handset to the authorized service centre M/s. Oxygen Care, on 26.06.2017. ie., one and half month from the date of its purchase. The authorized service centre of the opposite party replaced the main board of the disputed mobile handset and they charged Rs.9,650/- towards replacement charges even when the disputed mobile phone was under warranty period.   The above said act of the opposite parties amounted to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice also. On going  through the Exbt.A2 goods inward note clearly shows that the physical condition of the disputed mobile handset was ‘good and well’, but  ‘charging issue’ was also mentioned in the same Exbt. In this case, M/s. Oxygen care -authorized service centre of the opposite party demanded Rs.9,650/- in violation of warranty policy and we find that the above act as illegal and unethical. The above said act of the opposite parties is unethical and in violation of the Principle of natural justice. We are of the opinion that there is serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice happened on the side of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and their authorized service centre- M/s. Oxygen Care. In that case, the opposite parties are liable either to replace the mobile handset with a new one or to refund its price. In this case, the complainant stated the fact that he has been deprived of the phone facilities for the last several months due to the inordinate delay caused by the opposite parties and they failed to resolve the defect of the phone.  As a result, the complainant was compelled to purchase a new phone. In the absence of the any contrary evidence, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is believable and he is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed mobile handset from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Thus the issue Nos. (i) and (ii) in favour of the complainant.

6)      Issue No. (iii)

We find that there is serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice happened on the side of the 1^st, and 2^nd and opposite parties and their authorized service centre - M/s. Oxygen Care. Due to the above said reasons, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships financial loss… etc. which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant. We award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

7. In the result we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund an amount of Rs.17,300/- to the complainant which being the price of the disputed mobile handset as per the Exbt. A1 invoice.
2. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall also jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.  

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 12% interest p.a. from the 31^st day of receipt of this order till the date of payment. 

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 1^st day of March 2018.

Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch :

                             By Hand     :

                             By Post       :

                                           APPENDIX

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Opposite party’s Exhibits:    Nil

                                     ……………………..