Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/11/453

RATHEESH T. D. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA (P) LTD - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/453
 
1. RATHEESH T. D.
THACHAKKARAPARAMBIL, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA, PIN -682 019
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA (P) LTD
1ST FLOOR, FORTUNE ARCADE, N.H BYE PASS, PADIVATTOM, COCHIN 682 024
2. UNIVER CELL
THE MOBILE EXPERT, NEAR NEW BUS STAND, THRIPUNITHURA, COCHIN -682 301
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. A.RAJESH PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE MR. PROF:PAUL GOMEZ Member
 HONORABLE MRS. C.K.LEKHAMMA Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

 

Date of filing : 18/08/2011

Date of Order : 29/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

 

    C.C. No. 453/2011

    Between


 

Ratheesh. T.D.,

::

Complainant

Thachakkaraparambil,

Janatha Road,

Vyttila – 682 019.


 

(By party-in-person)

And


 

1. LG Electronics India (P) Ltd.,

::

Opposite parties

1st Floor, Fortune Arcade,

NH Byepass, Padivattom,

Cochin – 682 024.

2. Univer Cell,

The Mobile Expert,

Near New Bus Stand,

Tripunithura, Cochin – 682 301.


 

(Op.pty 1 absent)


 

(Op.pty by Adv. A.T.

Anilkumar,

Amulya Street,

Banerji Road,

Ernakulam, Kochi - 18)


 

O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.


 

1. Brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

On 06-03-2011, the complainant purchased a mobile phone (LG GX-300) from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. One year warranty has been provided by the 1st opposite party. While so, the hand set became defunct on 03-05-2011 and the defect has been rectified by the 1st opposite party's service centre. Again on 20-05-2011 and 16-06-2011, the complaint repeated and was rectified by the 1st opposite party's technicians. But the defect is still persisting. Hence this complaint. The complainant approaches this Forum seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the gadget under dispute and compensation.


 

2. Version of the 2nd opposite party :

The 2nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1st opposite party. No dispute with regard to the purchase of the handset under dispute. The warranty has been provided by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party being the manufacturer they are liable to replace or refund. But there is no specific complaint against them. If there is any defect, the 2nd opposite party is ready to issue a recommendation letter to the 1st opposite party for replacement of the mobile phone


 

3. The complainant appeared in person. The 1st opposite party remained absent even after the receipt of notice from this Forum. The 2nd opposite party appeared through counsel. They did not adduce any evidence. The complainant adduced only documentary evidence. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. Thereafter, we have heard both parties.


 

4. The points for consideration are as follows :-

  1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the gadget in dispute or not?

  2. Compensation and costs, if any?


 

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Ext. A1 is the tax invoice dated 06-03-2011 of the handset under dispute. This is the evidence for transaction. Ext. A2, Ext. A3 and Ext. A9 are the Job sheets dated 16-06-2011, 20-05-2011 and 04-05-2011 respectively. Those job sheets go to show that the complainant entrusted his handset with the service centre on various occasions. It appears that within a short span of time, the gadget became defective. The recurring defects of the gadget before and after the warranty period go to show that the same suffers from manufacturing defect. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the handset in question with a new one from the 1st opposite party. Since the defect has been occurred during the warranty period. The warranty has been provided by the 1st opposite party. Therefore, the liability is vested upon them. Being the dealer the 2nd opposite party has no liability to refund or replacement. Hence, they are exonerated from any liability. Moreover, the complainant is also entitled to get costs of the proceedings from the 1st opposite party.


 

6. Therefore, we allow the complaint as follows :

  1. The 1st opposite party shall replace the mobile phone in question with a new piece of the same description and price according to the choice of the complainant with fresh warranty.

  2. The 1st opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of October 2011.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.


 

Senior Superintendent.


 

 

 


 

A P P E N D I X


 

Complainant's Exhibits :-


 

Exhibit A1

::

Copy of tax invoice dt. 06-03-2011

A2

::

Copy of job sheet

A3

::

Copy of job sheet

A4

::

Copy of job sheet

 

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil


 


 

Depositions

 

::

 

Nil


 

=========


 

 
 
[HONORABLE MR. A.RAJESH]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE MR. PROF:PAUL GOMEZ]
Member
 
[HONORABLE MRS. C.K.LEKHAMMA]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.